1954-05-26

Mr. Studer:: What were the total advances in Saskatchewan under the Veterans' Land Act since its inception?


Mr. Bennett:: Return at March 31, 1954: $36,103,552.43.
Note-Of this amount, $543,452 was disbursed by citizenship and immigration in connection with grants to Indian veterans.


WEEKLY NEWSPAPERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation provided entertainment for any meeting of the Canadian Weekly Newspapers Association in the calendar years 1952 or 1953?
2.	If so, what was the nature of such entertainment and its cost?
3.	How many employees of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation attended the annual meeting of the C.W.N.A. in the years 1952 and 1953?
4.	What was the total expense of such employees attending each of these meetings?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Entertainment was not provided by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the purpose of performance at any Canadian Weekly Newspapers Association meeting in 1952 or 1953, but regular broadcast programs were originated from the dinners at the annual meetings of the association in these years.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	One in 1952 and one in 1953.
4.	$224.34.


C.B.C. TELEVISION, VANCOUVER
Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	What was the total cost of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's television installation in Vancouver, including building, transmitter, tower, ground system and studio equipment?
2.	Were tenders called for this installation?
3.	If so, was more than one received?
4.	On what basis was the tender or tenders awarded?
5.	Who drew up the specifications for buildings and equipment?
6.	Were these specifications checked or revised by any outside source or authority?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Expenditures paid to April 30, 1954, amounted to $819,000.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	On the basis of the lowest tender meeting the corporation's specifications and requirements.
5. The corporation's architects	and engineers.
6.	The antenna tower was designed by supplier and this design and footing design were referred to two separate firms of consulting engineers.


HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS
Mr. Pouliot:: Will the historic sites and monuments board, this year, place commemorative plaques at the Ecole Superieure Mgr-Tache, Riviere-du-Loup; at the birthplace of the late the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, former minister of justice, at St. Eloi, county of Temiscouata; at the summer residence that was occupied for fifty years, at Pointe de la Rivifere-du-Loup, by the late the Hon. L. A. Taschereau, who was premier of the province of Quebec for fifteen years?


Mr. Lesage:: A tablet commemorating Monseigneur Tache has already been erected at Riviere-du-Loup. The question of placing a second tablet to Monseigneur Tache at Riviere-du-Loup, at the Ecole Superieure Mgr. Tache is being referred to the historic sites and monuments board of Canada for recommendation, at its meeting in Ottawa next month.
No representations have been received respecting either the birthplace of the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, at St. Eloi, county of Temiscouata, or the summer residence of the late Hon. L. A. Taschereau at Pointe de la Riviere-du-Loup. As the matter has now been raised by the present question, the desirability of erecting tablets at these places will also be referred to the board for recommendation at its next meeting.

Motions for Papers



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Hansell:: What countries of Europe and Asia received aid under the mutual aid act of 1943, and how much did each receive during each year since and including 1943?


Mr. Hansell:: 1.	What was the total production of flax in bushels, during each of the last five years?
2.	What was the total amount of this flax processed in Canada for each of these years?
3.	What was the total amount exported, and to what countries in each of these years?
4.	Was any subsidy paid on the production, or the processing of flax during these years, and if so, how much?


DEATHS FROM HEART DISEASE, ETC.
Mr. Campbell:: 1.	What grants, by provinces, have been made by the federal government for heart research?
2.	What were the total number of deaths in Canada in 1953 from heart diseases of various kinds, and hardening of the arteries?
3.	What were the number of deaths from cancer, t.b. and violent accidents in 1953?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Gagnon:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Department of Transport or any agency under that department and the CKCH Hull Broadcasting Company Limited and the Canadian Marconi Corporation, in connection with a project for the installation of a television station for the Hull-Ottawa district.


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, owing to the absence of the minister on official business, I would ask the hon, member to agree to allow this motion to stand.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.


IRRIGATION-SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN PROJECT
Mr. Diefenbaker:: For a copy of all letters and telegrams that have passed between the government of Saskatchewan and the federal government, since the 1st day of March, 1954, regarding the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project.


Mr. Gardiner:: Mr. Speaker, there will not be any objection to any letters that have passed in the period between the 1st of March and a time not very far distant being brought down in the house. There is only one letter, and there are two very short telegrams. The position at the moment is that I am in the midst of discussing with the premier the facts contained in the letter itself.
IMr. Lesage.]
We have no objection to bringing it down but we must discuss it further with the Saskatchewan government before doing so. Then we will be able to bring it down in due course.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion is carried subject to the remarks made by the minister.


KOREAN RELIEF
Mr. Knowles:: For a copy of all communications received by the government, or by any minister or department thereof, from or on behalf of groups or organizations, dated since January 1, 1952, urging that Canada make gifts of wheat or of other Canadian products to help meet relief needs in Korea, or seeking information as to the possibility of such gifts being made or their scope being extended, together with a copy of the replies to all such communications.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I wonder whether my hon. friend would be satisfied to have samples. I am informed that several departments have received great masses of communications in identical terms. The copying of them would probably take a great deal longer than we hope this session will last, and I do not think it would be very profitable to anyone.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will accept samples if they are well chosen.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They will be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I mean that from my point of view and not from the point of view of the government. I would hope they would include letters written in reply by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before we leave this order I wonder whether I might ask the Secretary of State if the return just passed might indicate the number of such letters received?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be glad to see that it does.


ANTLER, SASK., POST OFFICE
Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents exchanged between any person or persons and the Post Office Department, since August 10, 1953, concerning the post office at Antler, Saskatchewan.


STATEMENT ON AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. T. Stick (Trinity-Conception):: In the
absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I wish to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs the following question:

What progress has been made in the recent negotiations for the sale of salt codfish to Spain and Portugal?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The hon. gentleman was kind enough to give notice of this question yesterday. I am now in a position to give a fuller reply than I would have been at that time. A Canadian delegation headed by the deputy minister of trade and commerce has been in Spain for some time carrying on trade negotiations with Spanish officials. My colleague the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) recently went to Spain to conclude the final phases of these negotiations with the Spanish government, and to sign the resulting agreement on behalf of the Canadian government.
I am pleased to inform the house, Mr. Speaker, that an agreement has now been reached with the Spanish government. This agreement is the first direct trade agreement between Canada and Spain. It will be signed today in Madrid by my colleague, Mr. Winters, and His Excellency Martin Artajo, Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs, and will come into force provisionally on July 1 of this year.
The new agreement provides for the exchange of most-favoured-nation treatment with respect to customs duties and related matters. Both countries undertake not to impose discriminatory import or exchange restrictions, except for balance of payments reasons. Such restrictions must not discriminate between dollar countries. As part of the agreement, the Spanish government has undertaken to make available import licences and dollar exchange for minimum annual imports from dollar countries cf 2,000 metric tons of dry salted codfish. This arrangement will improve and stabilize sales of Canadian salted cod in our traditional Spanish market.
Canada has accorded the following tariff concessions to Spain: the binding of free entry on olives from Spain as from July 1. Formerly, olives were subject to a duty of 17-5 per cent ad valorem. We have agreed to reduce the duty on edible olive oil from 7 [DOT] 5 per cent to 5 per cent and to eliminate the one cent per pound duty on almonds. We are also making a small reduction in the duty on paprika. As mentioned earlier, these tariff concessions become effective July 1, 1954.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: May
I ask the minister if he is in a position to make the text of this agreement available for distribution amongst members?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would have been glad to
table this text. However, I have only one copy and it has to be translated, so it could be tabled tomorrow. I could table the one copy now, in English, with the permission of the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I suggest that the same practice be followed in this case as was followed with the Japanese trade treaty, namely that it might be printed as an appendix to today's Votes and Proceedings for the use of members. May I also ask the minister if the treaty makes any provision for the purchase by Spain of Canadian wheat?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to have the
agreement appear, as suggested by my hon. friend, in Votes and Proceedings. The details will then be available to the house. There is no specific provision in the agreement covering wheat.


Mr. Speaker:: I noticed that the Secretary of State for External Affairs sent a copy of the trade treaty with Spain to the table. I did not ask the house if it agreed to revert to motions at this time so that this treaty could be tabled. I should like to point out that perhaps we might consider this problem. This copy of the trade agreement that has been tabled will have to be translated by our own personnel. When the minister tables the copy in French, translated by his officials, there might be some discrepancies. Perhaps we might wait until tomorrow when the copies in English and in French, issued by the minister's department, are ready, and they could be tabled at the same time, as has been the practice in the past. In this way, we would be sure that the copies in English and in French were issued from the one source and were official translations, the one of the other. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore I take it the minister will table both documents tomorrow.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to the report in yesterday's Ottawa Journal to the effect that a crowd of citizens, estimated to have exceeded 500 in number, gathered within the sight of,

Inquiries of the Ministry and less than 100 feet away from, the gallows in the United Counties jail where Peter Bal-combe was hanged, and conducted themselves in a semi-riotous and hoodlum-like manner?


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Harold Edward Winch: Will the minister inform the
house as to whether, in view of this unfortunate incident, he has in mind any changes in regulations that will prevent a recurrence of such an incident?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think we ought to
at least know what the question is. The preamble was much too long. Would the hon. member be kind enough to repeat the question the minister is supposed to answer?


Harold Edward Winch: Just the last part, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: That is the only part the hon. member should have given in the first place.


Harold Edward Winch: Will the minister inform the house as to whether, in view of this unfortunate incident, he has in mind any changes in regulations that will prevent a recurrence of such an incident?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I wish to thank my hon. friend for having given me notice of these questions. The answer to the first question is yes. With regard to the second question, the answer is that arrangements for the execution of the sentence of death are made by provincial authorities, to whose attention I shall draw the question my hon. friend has just asked.



EXPORT OF SURPLUS AT LESS THAN MARKET PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hen. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe): In
view of the enormous surplus of butter that is being offered to the trade at 2-5 cents less than the going market price, will the Minister of Agriculture state whether or not it is the intention of the government to export surplus butter at less than the market price or at the same price as it is put into the Canadian trade?
James Garfield Gardiner: I would not agree with the preamble to the question, that there is an enormous surplus of butter.


Mr. Rowe:: Thirty-three million pounds.


James Garfield Gardiner: Even that is not enormous. There are not 33 million pounds of that butter now.


William Earl Rowe: There were yesterday.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, there were not yesterday. It is down by about 4 million from that point.


William Earl Rowe: It is still 20 million up, though.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is in the 20's, somewhere, but even that is not what I would term an enormous amount, so I do not accept that statement as being correct. There has never been any announcement made here by me or by any member of the government that all that butter is going to be offered at any particular price. We have offered some of it for sale day by day at 55-5 cents to the trade within Canada, but there has been no arrangement made to sell any of it outside of Canada up to now. If an offer from outside is made for the butter, that will be considered on its merits.


William Earl Rowe: May I ask a supplementary question? Is 55-5 cents per pound not 2-5 cents less than the government paid for it?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, in some cases that might not be a correct statement. We started buying butter at 58 cents last spring, and the costs of carrying it through until this spring are added on to the cost to the government. The two and a half cents is approximately the cost of taking the butter out of the boxes, and putting it into prints and in a position to put it back on the market. I do not know what the difference between the two prices is. I would not like to say it is two and a half cents.


William Earl Rowe: It is more like five, then.


Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: I should
like to ask the minister a question. Will that butter deteriorate to the extent that it is not fit for use after it is kept a certain period of time in storage?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am told the experience is that it will remain practically the same as fresh butter for eighteen months.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: A supplementary question; has any of this butter been kept more than eighteen months?


James Garfield Gardiner: There has been butter-not this particular butter-but there has been butter kept that long.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Then, may I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) a question. Could not this butter that might be kept for a period of eighteen months be shipped, without charge, to the starving people in one particular part of the world, namely South Korea, as a gift from the taxpayers and the people of Canada who are enjoying prosperity in this country? Rather than have it destroyed, could we not ship it as a gift.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: May I have a reply from the Prime Minister?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has asked what the government will do if a certain condition prevails in a certain number of months. Why not wait until several months have elapsed, and then ask the government what will be done with the butter in question?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: We already have waited, and it is being thrown away.


Mr. Speaker:: Let us not debate the matter at this time. Orders of the day.



POLIOMYELITIS


[Stage Direction]
Canadian National Railways CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

Stuart Sinclair Garson: the third reading of Bill No. 442, respecting the construction of lines of railway by Canadian National Railway Company from St. Felicien to Chibougamau and from Chibougamau to Beattyville, all in the province of Quebec, and from Hillsport on the main line of the Canadian National Railways to Manitouwadge lake, both in the province of Ontario.
On the orders of the day:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the report that 10,000 units of polio vaccine will be made available in Alberta this summer, will arrangements be made for a similar quantity of this vaccine to be made available in other areas where there were epidemics last year, notably in Manitoba and Saskatchewan?


Hon. Brooke Claxlon (Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I shall call the hon. member's question to the attention of the minister.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources arising out of a recent press release which stated that many horses in lumber camps are in poor condition. The report goes on to state that out of 77 horses examined- Mr. Speaker:	Order. Would the hon.
member be kind enough to put his question.


Mr. Howe (Wellingfon-Huron):: I should
like to ask what is being done to prevent a recurrence of the practice of abusing horses in lumber camps.


Jean Lesage: I do not
know of any lumber camps which come under the jurisdiction of my department, but I shall look into the matter. I do not know what the hon. member is referring to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ask the Minister of National Defence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


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


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Girard):
That Bill No. 442 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house, for the purpose of reconsidering clause 1, dealing with the construction and completion of the proposed lines of railway.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Goode:: Mr. Speaker, because of the	
absence of the hon.	member for Medicine
Hat (Mr. Wylie), I did not vote.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: Because of the absence of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), I	
did not vote.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreeing to the	
main motion?	
Motion agreed to time and passed.	and bill read the third
RESEARCH	COUNCIL ACT
AMENDMENTS TO ENABLE COUNCIL TO ACQUIRE	
FUNDS, ETC.	
Right Hon. L. S.	St. Laurent (for the
Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the	
third reading of Bill	No. 375, to amend the
Research Council Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion agreed to?


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to take up about five minutes and no more of the time of the house on this bill. I believe that only by a vastly expanded program of industrial research can we hope to retain those domestic and export markets which are slipping through our fingers every day.
The fact that unemployment today is nearly double what it was a year ago is no mere chance. It is due to the fact that Canadian products are being steadily undersold by products being produced in other countries and which are being generally accepted by the Canadian buying public.
The astonishing part of all this is that what we have experienced so far is as nothing compared with what we will experience when Japan and Germany really get into their stride.
Now, what are we going to do about this? We have got to get costs down so that our products can be competitive with those they are competing with from other countries. How are we going to do it? There is one way, and this is by a greatly expanded research program aimed at two things. One is to develop new and better products with which to compete with these other countries and, secondly, to develop new, better and more efficient methods of producing the products we already produce.
The way to get a program like this started is to set up a committee of parliament on which would be included representatives of labour, management and educational institutions. Such a committee could study and discuss the best means of getting a program such as this under way, and obtaining the best results from it.
Such committees are not new. They have been proved to be a tremendous success in Great Britain and the United States, and there is no reason at all why such a committee would not be just as successful here in Canada. I am sorry, as I am sure most Canadians are, to see that the government has not already set up such a committee following the suggestion made by the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) last fall. Much valuable time has already been lost.
One of the reasons Canadian products are being steadily undersold by products from Great Britain and the United States is simply the fact that tremendous and continuous programs of industrial research are carried on in those countries. I believe that industry in this country has been unnecessarily handicapped by the unwillingness of the government to take any action so far in this regard.

Because the government has refused to take action and take this first step toward helping industry to get its costs down, this government must take the responsibility for the fact that Canadian products are continuing to be undersold; that we are losing markets day by day; and that unemployment, compared with a year ago, is steadily increasing in this country.
A glint of hope was given last night by the parliamentary assistant when he intimated that the government might be willing to accept the idea of setting up a committee of this kind. I hope that that is the view of the government, that the government has changed its mind, and that the government has at long last decided to accept the excellent suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Lambton West last fall, and that by the beginning of next session we will see a committee on research set up and under way.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Now that the hon. member for Oxford is following the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees), I might point out that when I put the motion for third reading and the hon. member for Broadview rose and said he would speak for only about five minutes I thought I would be lenient and allow him to make remarks of a general nature and even go into the question of a committee which had already been dealt with. Now I am very sorry for the leniency I have accorded the hon. member for Broadview. I see the hon. member for Oxford rise in his place and I want to tell hon. members now that I am in full agreement with the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Michener) when he said yesterday that this was merely a formal amending bill. If by virtue of the wide statement made by the minister who sponsored this bill on second reading we had a rather wide debate I do not propose to allow the same latitude on the third reading. Discussion on the third reading will have to confine itself to the bill which, as I have said, is merely a formal amending bill, and if hon. members intend to repeat the debate which we had and which was wide in scope on second reading I must inform them now that I am not prepared to give the same latitude on third reading.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, in view of your remarks I think possibly I may forgo the remarks I proposed to make which were of a somewhat general nature and purported to demonstrate the value which agriculture could derive from the institution of a research program. However, in view of Your
Public Service Superannuation Act Honour's ruling I think it would be wise to forgo the remarks I had intended making.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACT


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 463, an act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to supplement or round out the pension benefits provided under the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Defence Services Pension Act by adding to them a scheme of contributory death benefits.
It covers all public service employees who are contributing or who have completed their contributions under the superannuation act and all members of the regular armed forces.
The amount of the death benefit, in the case of public service employees, will be the employee's annual salary adjusted upward where necessary to make it an even multiple of $250, but with a top limit of $5,000. In the case of the armed forces the amounts will be an even $3,000 for persons below the rank of chief petty officer in the navy and equivalent ranks in the army and air force, and $5,000 for all others.
The rate of contribution by all those covered will be 10 cents a month for each $250 of benefit, that is, the rate will be 40 cents per $1,000 per month.
The government, of course, takes full responsibility for this measure, but I should like to say that the general outlines of these proposals were referred confidentially to the national joint council of the public service of Canada. The national joint council made a number of suggestions, most of which have been incorporated in the bill. I would not wish to imply that every member of the national joint council agrees with every detail of the bill, but I can inform the house that the national joint council has endorsed the broad outlines of the plan as a whole. I should also like to record my appreciation of the constructive assistance given by the national joint council in formulating this plan.
Yesterday on the resolution stage the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) asked whether the armed forces had been consulted in connection with this plan. The plan was formulated for the public service in the first instance and representatives of the armed forces then asked to be given a chance
5104	HOUSE OF
Public Service Superannuation Act to participate in the plan. Thereafter all the commands in Canada and abroad were asked for an expression of opinion of a good cross-section of all units under each command as to whether members of the armed forces should participate in a compulsory plan of this nature. Most were in favour of so doing. As regards the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to which the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich also directed his attention, I might say that they are not covered because they already have a group insurance plan of their own in force.
Participation in this added benefit will be obligatory upon all those covered by the superannuation act and upon all members of the regular armed forces. This compulsory feature of the plan is one which is bound to give rise to some individual objections. It has been included by the government only after very careful consideration and with the benefit of the advice of the national joint council.
The plan itself arose in part out of the review which was being conducted as to possible amendments to the Civil Service Insurance Act and in part out of the request of the national joint council and other bodies, for a group plan to provide benefits such as the one being introduced. The remarkably low rate of contribution is made possible only by the fact that this is a compulsory scheme and that those in good health as well as those in poor health are included. In addition to substantially higher rates of contribution, a voluntary scheme would have involved much greater administrative costs. As time went on, larger numbers of those who had not wanted to be under the plan in the first place would wish to participate as their family responsibilities increased or health deteriorated. If these persons were to be included there would have had to be the complicated addition of varying rates of contribution and medical examinations in all fairness to regular participants.
This plan is primarily designed to provide funds which will be readily available to pay the inevitable expenses arising out of or consequential upon the last illness and death of a contributor. The contributions are designed to cover the benefits under the plan on a month-to-month basis. I would not expect any large surpluses to be built up, and there is provision for an actuarial review within five years at which time, if the results warrant it, the rates would be adjusted upward or downward to keep the scheme in financial balance.
While to the younger civil servant or member of the forces who has no dependents now, and who has no present intention of remaining permanently in the public service, the


compulsory feature may seem to be unattractive, it will be possible to remain a participant under the plan by electing to do so upon retirement or withdrawal from the public service provided he has had a minimum of five years of service substantially without interruption immediately prior to that time. In that event, of course, it will be necessary for the individual to keep up the regular payment of contributions which will be higher than those paid while in the service because no government contribution will be payable in respect of those who have retired before they were eligible to receive an immediate annuity under the Public Service Superannuation Act or the Defence Services Pension Act.
The government contribution will take the form of the payment of one-sixth of the benefits of those who die while in the service or who had qualified for an immediate annuity upon retirement. This will replace the present gratuity of two months' salary on death which the government has been paying under section 56 of the Civil Service Act. In the case of those civil servants who are not covered by this scheme, the two months' gratuity on death will still be available under the same conditions as before. A similar basis of contribution will apply in the case of the armed forces, replacing the present interim allowance payable for two months following death of a married member of the forces. Interest will be payable on any balance to the credit of the accounts which are to be set up for those in the public service and those in the armed forces. Assuming normal mortality experience, there should be no net increase in government expenditures as a result of the introduction of this scheme.
One further general point: It will be clear from a reading of this bill that it is not intended to provide for the normal life insurance requirements of individuals. It provides only a reasonable and moderate death benefit of a kind commonly made available to employees by a growing number of large private employers. Public servants, like all other citizens, will continue to make their own provision for their own individual life insurance requirements in accordance with their individual needs and circumstances.
Turning now to some of the details of the plan, I might mention that the amount of the benefit will be subject to reduction of one-tenth of the nominal maximum for that participant for each year that the participant's age exceeds 60. This is subject, however, to an over-all minimum of one-sixth of the salary while the person is still employed. A person who elects to contribute after retirement will be subject to the same reduction

so that there will be no benefit available once that person is 70. In the case of members of the armed forces their earlier retirement age will mean that no reduction would normally apply until after retirement.
In conclusion, I should recall the statement which the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made in the House of Commons on April 30, when he announced that this legislation was to be introduced. He indicated that the government proposed to discontinue the issuance of new individual contracts under the Civil Service Insurance Act. Later that day I issued a statement to the effect that no new contracts of insurance under the Civil Service Insurance Act would be issued unless the medical examination was begun prior to May 1, 1954. This bill contains a section to implement this policy. This step has been taken on the grounds that it is not usual for an employer to provide individual policies for his employees and that the introduction of this new plan of supplementary death benefits provides the best means of meeting the minimum financial needs on the death of an employee over and above the indirect protection given by other legislation. All policies issued under the Civil Service Insurance Act will, of course, remain in full force and effect.
As my parliamentary assistant indicated at the resolution stage, since this bill has a number of technical aspects I believe it can best be considered in detail in the banking and commerce committee; and unless there is serious objections to such procedure I would move that it be referred to that committee at the conclusion of the debate on second reading. Officers of my department and, no doubt, officers of the civil service associations will be available to discuss the bill there.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, this bill has come before us in such a manner as to suggest that it is really almost a routine matter which can go through without anyone bothering much about it, but it seems to me that there is much more to it than that. It was only on Monday that the Governor General's assent was indicated. Yesterday we had the resolution stage and it was originally proposed that we should have second reading yesterday, but that suggestion was not pressed when we asked for further time for consideration. Actually hon. members received this bill only this morning. As I say, it is a measure of some length and of some considerable importance.
The first thing that strikes one about it is the title, namely "An act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act". Actually it has nothing to do with superannuation or pension. Indeed it seems to me that it could 83276-323
Public Service Superannuation Act much more properly have been called an act to amend or indeed to replace the Civil Service Insurance Act of 1893, which was subsequently amended in 1914 and in 1920. I do not wish to make a great point about the title except to say I feel that there is something not quite natural about bringing in these measures and just tacking them on as a schedule to the Public Service Superannuation Act.
Actually it is not clear what the principle of this bill is. Is it the principle to force civil servants to come in and insure themselves? I understand that under the provisions of the present Civil Service Insurance Act only some 13,000 are insured. If you consider that figure and consider the situation if this bill becomes law-it will automatically affect, I suppose, some hundreds of thousands of people -the question of compulsion looms rather large.
The other question that arises is one that has already been raised: Is this really a step forward into the insurance business by the government of Canada? As I said a moment ago, it seems to me that what this bill really does is to replace the Civil Service Insurance Act and that it has nothing to do with superannuation. The Civil Service Insurance Act was a voluntary measure. As I said, some 13,000 people were insured under it. While I have noted what the minister said about consultations had with representatives of the service, both military and civil, nevertheless there are those who have been looking after their own insurance, who have been ordering their own affairs and who do not welcome this interference in their lives.
These and other questions, it seems to me, might well be gone into by the banking and commerce committee; and I welcome the fact that the bill is to be referred to that committee. Nevertheless, for the reasons I have given, until we have a good deal more information as to some of the details and really until we have a chance of finding out what the principle of this bill really is, it seems to me that we should not be asked now to approve second reading. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe):
That this bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the committee on banking and commerce.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to say a few words with respect to the motion for second reading. Perhaps I can combine what I intended to say on the main motion with a few words I should like to say concerning the amendment moved by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell).

Public Service Superannuation Act Obviously the purpose of the amendment, to put it at its minimum terms, is to avoid a vote on the principle of the bill at this stage. I imagine that really the hon. member for Greenwood is against the principle of the bill but maybe he would say I was pressing his amendment too far if I interpreted it in that way. Perhaps the best way to find out where he and his party stand on the principle of the bill would be to have a vote on the main motion as well.
In any case, in view of the support for this measure which I indicated when it was at the resolution stage yesterday I may say that we support the bill now that we have it, and therefore we are opposed to the amendment which would have the effect of negating the principle of the bill. An amendment of this type is a well known device which we often employ ourselves when there is a measure before the house to which we are opposed, but since we are in favour of this measure we shall vote against the amendment that the bill be not now read the second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to a committee.
As I indicated yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we welcome the measure. I realize that the minister must know that he has very effectively proven the point which we have tried to make for a long time, namely, that life insurance can be provided at a much lower cost than is the case in this country at the present time.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: May I ask my hon. friend a question? Where do you get your figures for such an assertion? Produce them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would be very glad-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Give us the answer to that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -if the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) would give the name of any company in Canada that will sell term insurance of this kind at $5 or $6 a year per thousand, which is what is being offered to federal civil servants under this measure.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: He is asking me a question, Mr. Speaker. I would say that almost any company would if you would exempt them from taxation and give them the financial aid that the government obtains from so many sources. They would make a lot of money.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They could also sell it a lot cheaper if they were not out to make a profit.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Why don't you give up your indemnity?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The plain fact is that things you can obtain at cost are a lot cheaper than when the profit element has to be included. I am not surprised that my hon. friends of the Progressive Conservative party are annoyed and offended at this intrusion into-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Private enterprise.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Into private enterprise-that is right.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Into a very profitable portion of private enterprise, namely, the life insurance business.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: We do not want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg for your people.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I indicated yesterday, the effect of this measure is to make it possible for federal civil servants and members of the armed forces, all those who are contributors to or participants in any public service superannuation plan, to purchase for themselves term insurance in the amount of their annual salary with a ceiling of $5,000. The rate to be paid by the participant or insured civil servant is to be 40 cents per thousand per month or $4.80 per thousand per year. We recognize that $4.80 per thousand per year does not pay the whole cost of this insurance because about one-sixth of the amount will be paid by the government at the death of a member of this plan.
The minister has made it very clear that the measure does not involve any additional expense to the government at this time. It does not involve any increase in cost to the taxpayer because the one-sixth takes the place of the two months' salary gratuity now being paid when civil servants die while in the employ of the government. Therefore there is no increase in the cost to the taxpayer so far as this plan is concerned. I mention that because I recognize the fact that the total cost of providing this protection, including the amount paid by the civil servant and the amount paid by the government in carrying forward the two months principle, is a little more than $4.80. To be on the safe side, I will say that it may go as high as $6 per thousand.
That, anyone will have to admit, is very cheap term insurance and it is being made available without any loss for about $6 per thousand. It is mighty good to know now that it can be done. When we have said that it could be done there were those who argued that we were indulging in theory. I give the hon. member for Simcoe North, the hon. member for Greenwood and others of their

party credit for telling us what is really in their minds today. What they do not like about this measure is that it interferes with a very profitable sector of private enterprise.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: That is not so. That remark is far away from the truth, and you know it is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: That is not so. That is not our motive at all, and you know it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I ask the hon. member for Simcoe North not to interrupt the member who has the floor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am quite prepared to let the motive of the hon. member for Simcoe North in opposing this measure rest on what he himself said a few moments ago when I first started to speak. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) wants it to be understood that this measure is not to take the place of the normal life insurance requirements of civil servants. The inference is that the average civil servant might like to have additional protection, and I am sure we all agree with and understand that position, although the amount provided under this bill is more than many Canadians are able to purchase. But I think the point is surely quite clear that if it is possible to provide this much insurance by way of protection at a cost of approximately $6 per thousand, an even higher amount of protection could be afforded at that same cost.
Similarly, if it is now established that when you put it on an over-all compulsory universal basis you can provide protection like this without regard to health, age and so on, surely that proves our point that this principle could be established for our whole population as well as for civil servants. We are glad that the bill is being brought in. It is a good idea that it should go to the banking and commerce committee so that it can be examined carefully, so that some of the ridiculous objections that are being made to it can be answered by the officials of the government, and so that we can have on the record more excellent statements about the value of the insurance principle such as those that were made yesterday by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance and this afternoon by the Minister of Finance himself. We welcome the bill. We would like to see it go further with respect to civil servants. We would like to see the principle extended to cover all the people of Canada. Because that is our attitude towards this measure we shall vote against the amendment, the purpose of which is to negate 83276-323J
Public Service Superannuation Act the principle of the bill at the second reading stage, and we shall vote for second reading of the bill.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, the insinuation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Peace River.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I will only take a moment so that the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) may have a chance to reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) if he so desires. I should like to say at this time that I listened carefully yesterday to the discussion that took place on the resolution preceding the introduction of the bill. I listened carefully to what the minister has had to say today, and I cannot escape the feeling that this is a good bill. I would not like to support the amendment, because if I did then I would not have a chance to find out what I want to find out about the bill in committee. I am glad to see that the bill is going to the banking and commerce committee.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We want it to go to the
committee, you know.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just the subject matter: not the bill.


Solon Earl Low: I believe I understand the purpose of the hon. member's amendment. So far as I am concerned, I should like to have the bill as it is presented to the committee for a complete investigation. I am quite certain that when it does go to the banking and commerce committee it will receive a full investigation.
There are a number of things that I am not satisfied with in my own mind, but I shall wait until the matter is before the committee, and I shall ask questions to assure myself on these points.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But your hands will be tied.


Solon Earl Low: I do not think they will be tied.
I believe the committee chairman will see to it that we have ample opportunity to examine into every phase of the bill, and to ask questions. Furthermore, I am quite sure the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) will allow any officials it may be necessary for the committee to question to be brought before the committee.
When we have all the information before us about the bill, what it is going to cost the taxpayers of the country, if anything, what principle it may violate or what principle it may introduce here for the first time,
5108	HOUSE OF
Public Service Superannuation Act then I shall be in a far better position to say whether or not I can give the whole bill my support. Until then, I am going to reserve the right to take any objection I may want to take. In the meantime, I am supporting the second reading of the bill.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I
would say, Mr. Speaker, at least 80 per cent of the members of this house know practically nothing about insurance policies of various types that can be procured from insurance companies. The hon. member for Winnipeg-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Winnipeg North Centre.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: -North Centre-I want to pinpoint you right down to where you come from, said the Conservative party's sole idea was to protect the profitable interests. That is the farthest from our thoughts.
I am supporting the private individual, the one source of energy, efficiency and guidance in proper business management. I cannot see why this government wants to go into the life insurance business, when they can purchase satisfactory protection for all civil servants from a private corporation. Let me assure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that I am in favour of every civil servant purchasing life insurance at the lowest possible cost from the private corporations that have been in the business for years. I believe all civil servants should have reasonable pensions. I believe everybody in the country should have some money to leave to dependents when they die. If such a scheme can be worked out, I will back it. I want the scheme to be placed in the hands of competent people. I cannot see why the government should be extending its departments to handle a business about which they know nothing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You want it done at a profit.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: We are all entitled to a
profit; that is the incentive that creates progress and success, profit sharing. If anyone in this country says he will work for nothing, and does not want the rewards of his efforts, if that occurs in this country we will not stand still, because that is impossible, but we will not be progressing. We will be going back.
Hon. members have only received this bill today. The subject is not a run of the mill thing such as giving civil servants a pension. It is more than that. There is a principle involved. Why should the government be running an insurance company? There is the principle involved of the government taking dictatorial powers to say that a man must take out insurance. This is an interference with civil liberties. The scheme will take


business from concerns that are recognized by the finance minister as competent financial institutions in this country; firms that have purchased millions of dollars of government bonds; firms that are headed by some of the greatest men in this dominion. These corporations are taxpayers. These people have cleared the paths in the insurance business, and now make it possible for almost every man and woman in this country to purchase life insurance at a reasonable figure, with a slight remuneration to those who have done the work.
The principle of this bill has a lot involved in it. Every member of this house should take a copy of the bill to some person who knows a little about the subject and ask, whom does this affect? How badly does it affect them? Why should the government go into the life insurance business? Our party is not against civil servants receiving a pension in any way, shape or form. We are not standing up for any corporation that charges an excessive amount or gouges the civil servant. We want to see that civil servants are protected by private corporations who have proven themselves, beyond the shadow of a doubt, capable of managing matters of this kind. We do not like to see the matter sloughed off, without the attention of the men who have been duly elected to represent their constituents properly on all matters that are brought before this house.
You know what I say is true. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre knows practically nothing about insurance. I have spent my life in the business. I can tell from the words he uses that he has not spent any longer in an insurance office than it takes to pay his premiums.


Mr. Speaker:: Because sometimes in the heat of debate certain expressions are used, I know the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) -


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I retract any expression, Mr. Speaker, that I should not have used in this case.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: We
were not going to take any objection to what the hon. member for Simcoe North said because he is always most delightful when he is most indignant. He makes the most interesting speeches in the house, and I am sure everybody enjoys them. I am quite sure he has no ulterior motive in whatever he says, but he has also demonstrated a capacity for error which is perhaps not unnatural when one considers the party to which he gives allegiance.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You see the friendly feelings between us, Mr. Speaker. Oh, how I love them.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: But, as a matter of fact, the reason for the government going into this insurance project is that it can do it more cheaply than the private insurance companies can.


Mr. Trainor:: Would the hon. member prove that point?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If I might be permitted to join in the debate at this time, are we going to have a debate as to the merits of government insurance as compared with private insurance? I think that is merely an offspring of the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), when the matter of private insurance was brought in. The subject really came in by the back door. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was speaking to the bill, and it was as a result of interruptions that he referred to this matter of private enterprise. That is how it slipped into the debate.
If the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) is going to offer as the main subject of his speech the virtues of this government plan of insurance, as compared with what could be given under a private enterprise scheme, then I think we are deviating from the principle of the bill. If that debate is to continue we will forget completely the subject matter that should be under discussion, namely a bill to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act. If we continue in this way we will have a protracted debate on the point as to whether this government scheme is better than one which could be provided by private insurance companies.
I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North sees my point, and that he will cooperate with the Chair in making certain that he does not go too far afield in discussing the principle of the bill.


William Earl Rowe: On the point of order; if that is your ruling, Mr. Speaker, then most certainly we would abide by it. But, naturally, the very principle in the amendment offered by the government is the principle of the government going into the insurance business.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, it is not going into the insurance business, at all.


William Earl Rowe: Methinks thou dost protest too much.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members may advance the argument that the government should have left this field to the private insurance companies and, of course, that would be a proper argument in debate. But I am sure
Public Service Superannuation Act that is not all the argument which could be made as to the principle of this bill. The hon. member for Winnipeg North initiated his remarks by referring directly to what was said by the last speaker. I believe we have heard a full exchange of views between the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson). But, in the process of these interchanges, let us not lose track of the bill; let us discuss the principle of the bill and refrain from any deviation which would lead us into a discussion of a branch of the subject with which we are not concerned now.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I am quite convinced that everything you say is correct. I was just indulging in a little innocent jousting with my friend from Simcoe North. However, I notice he has now left the chamber for a moment perhaps in the hope that he can read in Hansard what I have to say.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: No, here I am. I would sooner listen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: The hon. member intrigues me with his suggestion that the constitution is being violated and civil liberties endangered in Canada because the government decides to enter into this particular insurance scheme.
Then the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Trainor) asks me how I can prove that this insurance will be cheaper than that offered by the commercial companies. Well, the answer is obvious. We have as supervising officials in this country a group who, I am told, are not only hard-hearted but flinty-hearted. I refer to those who sit on the treasury board. And I am quite sure treasury board would make certain that they were going to save the taxpayers money through this scheme, rather than throw it away.
I should like to answer the hon. member for Winnipeg South much more fully, as indeed I could; but if I were to do so I would not be following Your Honour's very sound advice offered only a moment ago.
All I wish to say is that the measure is an excellent one, and we would like to see more of it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I shall take only a moment. I really had not expected that this debate would generate quite so much heat. I do not agree with the point raised by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Mac-donnell) that this is not a proper amendment to the superannuation act.

Public Service Superannuation Act
I have given this measure a great deal of my personal consideration. It has been under study for many months, and I am satisfied both that it is a good measure and that the proper place to have it is in the superannuation act. I do not mean that my opinion should prevail necessarily; nevertheless I am convinced that this is so. I do not think anyone has ever accused me of being a socialist. I am convinced that this is not socialization of the life insurance business.
As I said in my opening statement it is intended to provide death benefits, of a relatively small amount, which will take care of the inevitable liabilities which are accumulated in most cases just prior to death.
The superannuation act itself, as the house knows, contains a substantial insurance element. Every superannuation plan which makes provision for a widow or children to receive an annuity after death of an employee or a civil servant, contains an insurance element, in the true sense of the term.
Like my hon. friend from Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson), I like to think I know something about life insurance. In earlier days I used to earn a fair part of my living by advising life insurance companies how to operate, according to the legal aspects of their business. So that I believe I do know something about life insurance contracts.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Was that advice given gratis?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, rarely, if ever. As I say, I had to make my living doing it; consequently I had to charge a fair fee for my services.
As I say, every superannuation plan of this kind contains some insurance element, in the strict sense of the term. This is the type of plan which I do not think any insurance company could possibly undertake. It is tied to the superannuation plan. In order to participate, a member must be a contributor to the superannuation account, in the case of civil servants, or to the pension account in the case of members of the regular armed forces.
I have refrained carefully from using the word "insurance" in connection with this matter, because I do not think it is insurance, in the commercial sense of that word. I agree with the remarks made here by some hon. members, that the life insurance companies of this country are providing an excellent type of coverage, and providing it at reasonable costs. So far as this sort of thing is concerned, as I have said this is


merely a supplement to our existing superannuation scheme. I think it is a good plan. I think it is one that the majority of civil servants will appreciate.
I cannot agree with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood, that the bill be not now read a second time, but that we should refer the subject matter to the banking and commerce committee. The government takes full responsibility for the bill, as I said in my statement, and I shall therefore hope that, in the not too distant future, we may send the bill to the banking and commerce committee where I am sure all the information hon. members may want can be made available.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to delay the discussion of the bill unduly. However, I can see that the amendment is not meeting with unanimous approval. I can realize that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) is anxious to get rid of the bill as quickly as possible, because it does smack a little bit of socialistic trends; and from the support he is receiving from the left it is not surprising that the Minister of Finance blushes.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is just the suntan I got fishing.


William Earl Rowe: I am glad the minister has time to fish, because we all realize that would not do any harm over the week end, but I would have thought that in his quiet moments of private thinking while he was fishing, unless the fish were biting better than they were for me, he would have reconsidered this bill and thought of it in a little different way.
Unlike the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) and the Minister of Finance, I have not made much of my living out of the insurance business. Therefore I am not just as much of an authority on all the rules of the insurance business as they appear to be, although like them I have contributed something toward insurance in the past, and in fact if I live as long as my ancestors I am afraid the insurance companies will be the winners.
I am a great believer in insurance. I have a keen regard for any plan that gives security to families by way of pensions and superannuation to civil servants or pensions and insurance plans to industrial workers as well. I have had some experience in that field, and I have always encouraged pension plans so that when people are out of a job or reach maturity they might benefit from some such plan.

The minister says he has given this a lot of study. I have great regard for the minister's judgment on some occasions; in fact, I have a high regard for his sincerity on all occasions, but I do not just agree with him that because he has given it a lot of study it is necessarily a hundred per cent right. He says it certainly is not socialistic and that the principle of it cannot be termed an insurance principle-the amount is too small. Well, amounts rise and fall but principles never change. To my mind, the size of the insurance amount does not alter the principle. He has said that every pension plan has some insurance element in it. That is true. That is the intention, but I submit, Mr. Speaker, there is a unique difference in this. This is not the same as the ordinary superannuation or pension scheme. It is not merely, as the minister says, only a supplement to that. This is a case of where, as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) has quite properly said, many thousands are involved in addition to those who are on superannuation or pension schemes today.
The minister says that he has carefully avoided calling it insurance because he does not think it is. I can understand why he would carefully avoid calling it insurance or getting into the insurance business, but I submit that because he carefully avoids calling it that it does not follow that we of the opposition cannot so describe it. We call it as we see it. In so far as pensions and superannuation are concerned, I do feel that the insurance feature of it is one thing, but I do not believe we should have an act passed under which everybody in the civil service and in the armed forces must take their insurance in this way.
I can agree with the Minister of Finance that our insurance companies in this country are doing a grand job. They are among our soundest and best institutions in the country. They have given a fine service to this country by encouraging people to prepare for their old age, sickness, hospitalization and so forth. They have co-operated with industry in an excellent way, and have encouraged industry to look after their labouring men. They have given a fine service in the development of this country and in having money available. Despite what my hon. friends to the left may say, I must agree with the hon. member for Simcoe North that after all service without profit is a misnomer. It is certainly through companies like insurance companies that industry has been able to obtain capital to the extent of $10,000, $12,000 and sometimes $15,000 per man employed in
Public Service Superannuation Act great industries across this country. Insurance companies have played a very important role in the development of this country and are doing so at the present time. They are sound; in fact, they are a pattern to many other places where insurance companies have not been as well handled perhaps. I must say that through the government and government regulations our insurance and banking business have been well handled in this country over the many years of that development.
But I do believe that this bill should not now be read a second time but that the subject matter thereof should be referred to the committee on banking and commerce. I say that not merely because the hon. member for Greenwood has moved it; I say that not merely because this party does stand for free enterprise and the encouragement of initiative and genius in our financial setup which I believe has stood the test of time here and has been demonstrated as successful on this whole North American continent, and in fact we might say in the free parts of the world.
I believe the government should be getting out of private business rather than getting more and more into it all the time. While the minister does not claim to be other than a sound free enterpriser, I am glad that he is not any more of a non-free enterpriser than he is because it would be dangerous to this country. I remember many years ago that the party to which he belongs swung widely to the left, and some of his followers swung with it; in fact, they tipped over and some of them almost got into the socialistic ditch, as it were.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The slough of despond.


William Earl Rowe: They have had trouble ever since getting back. In fact some who sit to your right, Mr. Speaker, seem to be wobbling over in that direction yet. I notice that those who are left who are free enterprisers, as I say, claim to be free enterprisers, blush when the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid I will have to interrupt the hon. member. I cannot allow the hon. member to carry on in that vein. I think he is deviating from the subject matter which should interest us at the moment.


William Earl Rowe: I will certainly submit to your ruling. Despite your rulings, Mr. Speaker, I know you are a free enterpriser, and I shall certainly submit to your ruling. I will not proceed along the line that you say is not connected with the bill, because I would

Public Service Superannuation Act rather bow to your ruling than follow my judgment in that regard. I do feel, however, that this bill might well have been considered by the banking and commerce committee. Let me read the explanatory note:
The purpose of this bill is to provide death benefits up to a maximum of $5,000 for the spouse or the estate of a public servant or a member of the regular forces, in addition to superannuation or pension benefits. The right to the death benefits will continue in certain circumstances after a public servant ceases to be employed by Her Majesty or a member of the regular forces ceases to be such a member.
I hope I am not in error and that the hon. member for Greenwood is not in error when we say, as we have stated, that there is a compulsory feature to it. If I am in error the Minister of Finance might interrupt to correct me. I would think that the compulsory feature is quite conspicuous. I hope it is not, as the hon. member for Greenwood has just interjected in an aside, that the government seems to be so accustomed to compulsory measures that they just take this one for granted.
Well, I do not expect ever to have a civil service job, certainly not while this government is in power. However, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the Minister of Finance would look after my security even if I were a civil servant, though I must add that if I did belong to the civil service I would like to have a choice as to whether I should entrust my future security to the government now in power or to a private insurance company. I hope I am not breaking any rules, Mr. Speaker, when I say that if I personally were a civil servant I would rather depend on a sound insurance company than the changing policies of the government as demonstrated in this act.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. It seems to me that it would be of some assistance to everyone if we could have the principle of this bill defined. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) implies that he knows it but he is keeping it a secret. I wonder if he could state that principle and we might then find out if the Minister of Finance approves.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is rising on a so-called question of privilege. I think generally the principle of this bill is well understood.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is quite obvious.


Mr. Speaker:: When I intervene and call an hon. member to order I regret doing so but I am quite sure he understands why I do so. I do not want a debate on private

enterprise versus government enterprise. That is the point which has been raised. I think the principle of the bill is well understood and hon. members should not rise on a question of privilege in order to have the principle of this bill defined, especially after the statement made by the sponsor of the bill.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words in support of the amendment to the effect that the subject matter of this bill be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce. I believe that the debate this afternoon, instead of clearing the air regarding the principle of this bill has to a certain extent clouded the issues. However, I am not going to enter into any discussion as to the advantages of government entering the field of insurance, though I certainly believe that before the committee evidence could be adduced as to which might be the cheapest method of dealing with the matter.
Last night I expressed some doubts as to the wisdom of proceeding with the resolution upon which this bill is based, and since then my doubts have been reinforced by representation made to me from outside the house regarding the desirability of making this form of additional benefits to the superannuation act compulsory. There are many groups in the civil service and in the armed forces who do not appreciate being compelled to take out this new form of benefit.
I think I may point out that the more senior members, either of the armed services or the civil service, have over a number of years been able to build up the security they considered necessary to look after their families after their death. They have been investing their savings in various forms of insurance to augment their pension over a great many years. Many of them are carrying all the insurance their salaries will permit them to carry at the present time. If they are to be compelled to take on another $5,000 that will mean a reduction in their present salary to the extent of the contributions which are necessary, and it will also mean a consequent lowering, though not too great, in their standard of living.
Again, those who have already provided for their families know that their estate will be subject to succession duties when they die. This means that another $5,000 will be added to the estate to be subject to taxation for succession duties when they die, so that instead of the widow receiving $5,000 she may receive only $4,500, the other $500 being deducted in succession duties for a senior member of the services.

There are many forms of group insurance, but I do not believe that any of these group schemes now in existence demand that all employees contribute to that group insurance scheme, so I do not see why it is necessary to insist that every member of the civil service or the armed forces, whether they have already provided for their families after death or not, must contribute to this scheme.
There is also the problem of the junior member, particularly the female members in the civil service and in the armed forces. They regard the provision of an estate after their death as being the responsibility of the male member of their families, and those who do not marry and do not intend to marry at the present time do not see why they should have to put their savings into a form of life insurance rather than into an annuity.
Many young people contribute to life insurance in order that they may have some capital on which they can borrow money. I do not know whether the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) will explain whether an individual will be able to borrow money on the amount of his contribution paid into this particular fund.
Another field of activity was brought out in the debate last night. The parliamentary assistant said that crown corporations could, if they wished, enter into this scheme. That is a field in which various insurance companies have been carrying group insurance policies for these employees in crown corporations, and that will certainly be an invasion into the legitimate field of these insurance companies.
A good deal of emphasis has been laid upon the fact that this is a death benefit designed to assist in the payment of bills connected with the final illness of the contributor. I would like to point out that in many provinces hospital insurance is already provided by governments. For example, in the province of British Columbia there is hospital insurance. Contributions are made in various ways and there are similar schemes in other provinces so that commitments for the final illness may not be particularly heavy, and they are already being provided for through one medium of taxation or another.
Again there are voluntary schemes such as the Blue Cross scheme which provide for the expenses paid during illness. It seems to me that there is every reason to refer the subject matter of this bill to the committee on banking and commerce. The experts can then come before that committee and can explain the necessity for the measure and the committee can hear the objections which are held by various members of the civil service and by members of the armed forces to having to contribute to this scheme.
Public Service Superannuation Act


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. St. Laurent:: Mr. Speaker, it was because of the absence from the house of the Leader of the Opposition that I did not vote on the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question on the main motion?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Would you call the yeas and nays, Mr. Speaker, please?


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the main motion will please say "yea".


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are opposed to the main motion will please say "nay".


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Ellis
Pairey
Fraser
(St. John's East) Gardiner Garland
Gauthier (Lake St. John)
Gauthier (Portneuf)
Gingues
Goode
Gourd (Chapleau)
Gregg
Habel
Hanna
Harris
Harrison
Healy
Hellyer
Hollingworth
Holowach
Hosking
James
Johnston (Bow River)
Jones
Jutras
Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough)
Kirk (Shelbume-Yarmouth-Clare) Knight Knowles Lafontaine Langlois (Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere) Langlois (Gaspe) Lapointe Leboe
Leduc (Jacques Cartier-Lasalle)
Leduc (Verdun)
Legare
Lesage
Low
MacDougall
MacEachen
Maclnnis
MacKenzie
MacNaught
McCann
McCubbin
McDonald
Mclvor
McWilliam
Masse
Matheson
Mitchell (Sudbury) Murphy
(Westmorland) Nicholson Nixon Nose worthy Patterson Pearson Philpott Picard Pickersgill
Power (Quebec South) Power
(St. John's West) Proudfoot Prudham Quelch Regier Reinke
Richard (Ottawa East)
Roberge
Robichaud
Robinson
(Simcoe East)
Ross
Shaw
Simmons
Sinclair
Stewart
(Winnipeg North) Stick
Stuart (Charlotte)
Thatcher
Thibault
Tucker
Viau
Villeneuve Weir Winch Yuill-125.


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Again, it was because of the absence from the house of the Leader of the Opposition that I abstained from voting on the main motion.

Bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a
question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I just happened to pick up a printed copy of Bill No. 462. In fact, I have two of them in my hand and they are both headed "confidential." I wonder how it happens that bills printed and available for distribution to members happen to be marked "confidential".


Mr. Speaker:: I think that matter can be easily explained. Before a bill is introduced, a copy is sent to the Clerk as confidential. It is by error that the mark "confidential" has been kept on the bill after it has been introduced and is ready for distribution. It is really a minor point, and I do not think the hon. member should concern himself any more about it.
I noticed that according to the order of business as announced last evening by the leader of the house, the act respecting banks and banking is to be considered first in committee of the whole, followed by the act to amend the Bank of Canada Act, and then the act respecting savings banks in the province of Quebec. These three bills, as hon. members know, have been reported by the standing committee on banking and commerce. By leave of the house, I would suggest that these three bills be referred to the committee of the whole at the same time. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



THE BANK ACT


Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 338, respecting banks and banking.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I might say a word to reiterate what I said in the banking and commerce committee, that is to express my personal appreciation of the very efficient and workmanlike job that was done by the chairman and members of that committee in considering this and the other two bills which we shall have before us. The proceedings of the committee, I thought, were exceptionally helpful this session. They were helpful to me because, unlike some other 83276-324J
The Bank Act
hearings of the banking and commerce committee, they made very little demands on the time of the Minister of Finance and for that I was truly appreciative.
Quite sincerely I think the committee did a splendid job. They heard a great many witnesses, they examined the bill with great care and some amendments were made, perhaps not ones of great significance from the point of view of policy although one or two were of considerable importance. In this connection I think of the amendment to section 75 which removes the prohibition on taking as security goods, wares and merchandise with respect to small loans. The security, of course, has to be taken in accordance with the laws of the province in which it is given. That is, I think, the important amendment that was suggested by the committee, and one to which the government was glad to give its approval. There were some other amendments proposed, and we shall deal with them as we come to them. However, I did want to express to the house my personal appreciation for the work that was done by the committee.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to add a word or two merely to comment on what the minister has said. The committee, under the able and energetic chairmanship of the hon. member for Spadina, who I think is the reincarnation of a benevolent slave driver, had 28 meetings altogether. I think, on the whole, the committee did good work and the matters that came before it were very fully discussed.
I think the discussion was useful. I was interested in the reference to the fact that it took less time than, I gather, it did for the minister ten years ago. And, indeed, those whose memories go back ten years assure me that the proceedings on this occasion, while I hope they generated at least as much light, did not generate nearly as much heat. In fact, it seems to me, they were very useful indeed.
We had the advantage of visits from the minister, the deputy minister, the inspector general of banks, and the governor of the Bank of Canada, the president of the bankers' association, and representatives of other organizations, notably those of farmers.
As I say, the discussions were carried on with tolerance and in a co-operative manner. The result of the standing committee's work is before the committee of the whole house today and I think there would be no point in my making any further observations at the moment. Anything I may have to say in addition to what I have said can be said when the sections are called.


The Chairman:: Shall clause 1 carry?

The Bank Act


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say only a few words. I do not intend to make a lengthy speech, because I do not believe it is called for at this stage. However I do wish to join with the minister and the hon. member for Greenwood in complimenting the chairman upon what I think was an excellent job all the way through the hearings of the committee. I found him fair and just in every respect, and I feel it incumbent upon me to acknowledge that fact.
The committee did a good job. I think it was a good committee, and I enjoyed serving on it. I was able to attend most of the sittings, and discovered that very early in proceedings the committee got into the mood of a thorough and objective inquiry. That mood was broken only occasionally, and for just a short time on each occasion. Of course it would be too much to expect a group of political representatives from four political parties to meet for over two months in an intensive investigation of various fields without occasionally slipping from their objective approach into something like a bit of politics. I suppose that is not only to be expected, but in some measure perhaps it enlivened the proceedings of the committee. I enjoyed every bit of it.
I believe the work was done thoroughly; and if anything related to banks and banking, as well as monetary or financial policy, was overlooked I would think it would be something of very little importance. Because the committee, generally, was very careful in its work. I feel the public interest has been fully protected so far as the committee was able to protect it. The intensive investigations and studies made over a period of more than two months, together with the careful study made of the bank bills, served to reinforce the views my colleagues and I have held with regard to banks and banking, and monetary policies generally.
No evidence was brought forward which changed substantially the main conviction we had before the committee began to work. I wish to say only that at this time. During the examination of the bills, clause by clause, there will be occasion where I may have something further to say. At the moment, however, I shall leave it at that.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words at this point. I hesitate to offer any more congratulations to the chairman of the banking and commerce committee in the fear that it would not be good for him. But I must say this that as a new member in the House of Commons and, of course, of the banking and commerce committee, I did appreciate very much the endless courtesy extended by the chairman
[The Chairman.]
and also by the witnesses to a very inexperienced member on the committee trying to play his part in an unaccustomed field.
I found it intensely interesting and extremely educative to be on the committee. I believe I speak for all members when I say that I am sure we benefited immensely from the evidence given by the various distinguished witnesses who appeared before us, and who answered so frankly and so fully the rather groping questions of those who, like myself, were new to that particular field,
I should like for a moment or two to speak about some of the changes made, and the implications of those changes. As the minister has said, the amendment permits the chartered banks to lend money on chattel mortgages. It remains to be seen of course just to what extent the chartered banks will take advantage of that new provision. I, myself, was somewhat in doubt as to whether we were wise in not getting a clearer definition of the legality of the existing method of imposing effective rates of interest on personal loans. Apparently there have been two conflicting legal opinions in that regard, and it is possible that we might have been wiser had we put in operation a course of action that would have resulted in a final court decision in that regard.
There were also in the banking and commerce committee a number of other interesting developments. A point I found most interesting was the very clear evidence that now we have an entirely different banking system from that which existed twenty years ago. I doubt whether anyone in the banking business today would deny that fact for a moment. It was for that reason that some of us in this group who served on the committee pursued the question of the much debated inner reserves. I speak for myself when I say that this was done, not so much from the point of view that here were some hidden profits that malefactors in the banking business were hiding from us but because we felt that the whole concept of inner reserves was an example of, shall we say, a hold-over of thinking from a previous banking system, and that today the arguments which might have been made in favour of inner reserves are no longer valid.
As those who attended the meetings of the committee will recall, the Minister of Finance was extremely careful not to commit the government to any blanket proposition that nowadays the government of Canada cannot afford to let any chartered bank fail. But I think I was not alone in that committee in gathering the very clear impression that it would be extremely unlikely for a government in Canada to let a bank fail

today. In fact that was one of the things that seemed to me to come out most clearly from the hearings of the banking and commerce committee. I was impressed by the fact that today we have an integrated banking system of which the Bank of Canada, the publicly-owned institution, is the one part, and the chartered banks are the other part.
No longer can we ignore the fact that the two functions of the chartered banks-and there are two quite distinct functions-indicate that in Canada we have a somewhat anomalous position with regard to our banking system. Those two functions, of course, are first the guarding of the savings of the general public and making loans to industry, and secondly the distribution, expansion or contraction of the money supply, in co-operation with the Bank of Canada and the government of Canada. Because of this latter function, 1 think the contention that those of us in this group have been making all along, the contention that the banking system inevitably must sooner or later become classified as a public utility is a valid contention.
I would conclude by suggesting that long before the Bank Act comes again before a banking and commerce committee of the House of Commons it will be accepted generally that such a development is in the interests of the orderly development of Canada.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: Mr. Chairman, as a member of the banking and commerce committee I should like to say just a word. I am going to congratulate the chairman because he did a good job, but I do not think he could have done the job that he did unless he had the full co-operation of the committee. Every member on the committee tried to do his best to see that the Canadian Bank Act was the best in the whole of the world. I think we have an excellent Bank Act. I feel that the banking association of Canada is doing its best to see that banking in Canada is kept on a very high level.
In congratulating the chairman I do think that the inspector of banks should be included. Mr. Elderkin, as a witness, never hesitated once all through the gruelling questions that he had thrown at him. He seemed to know the answers, and he seemed to know his business right down to the ground. Mr. Atkinson, the chairman of the bankers' association, also did an excellent job, and did not hesitate to give us a yes or no answer and to explain what was what.
I know that the banking and commerce committee of 1954 did as good a job as, if
The Bank Act
not better than, the banking and commerce committee of 1944, of which I was a member. We had lots of fireworks, as was mentioned at that time, but we did not have the cooperation of the members on the 1944 committee that we had this time. At this time everyone was in harmony and tried to put everything on a fair basis. There is not very much more that can be said about the Bank Act, the Bank of Canada Act or the Quebec Savings Banks Act at this time. However, there is one matter to which I should refer. I still feel we should not allow the Bank of Canada to have unlimited say as to how much money they can put into circulation. There should be a limit on that.


Mr. Croll:: Mr. Chairman, I may be forgiven for rising to say just a few words. I want to tell the committee and those who have spoken how touched I am and pleased with the kind words that were directed at me as chairman of the committee. It is only too true that the work of the committee was a co-operative effort. I appreciate the kind references very much, but all the members of the committee will be very glad to know that I deflate very easily after praise.
The three bank bills-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Don't we all?


David Arnold Croll: -which were examined by the committee were, in my opinion, the most important items on the agenda at this session of parliament, and yet, in the main, they were non-controversial. There was a difference of emphasis, and members stressed particular points, but whatever they did they did in a constructive manner.
The aim of the committee was to let us freely hear all sides. It was exhaustive in its study; it was hard-working; it was diligent. It held 28 meetings and reviewed the bills painstakingly and constructively. There was a complete lack of partisanship and partisan consideration in almost 1,000 pages of evidence.
The committee, as has already been said, was fortunate in having before it some extremely capable witnesses. I should like to single out Mr. Graham Towers, governor of the Bank of Canada, for special mention. He spoke his mind and he expressed his opinions, and they were both valuable. Mr. Elderkin, the inspector general of banks, was in constant attendance and was particularly helpful to the chairman and to the committee, as was Mr. K. W. Taylor, deputy minister of finance, both of whom the committee heard. The president of the Canadian Bankers Association, Mr. T. H. Atkinson, was informative and helpful to the committee. He gave

The Bank Act
the committee whatever information it required and asked for and answered all questions to the best of his ability, and that is considerable. The general managers of the other chartered banks were in attendance throughout the sittings.
We were pleased by a visit from the Hon. Lucien Maynard, attorney general of the province of Alberta, who presented a brief on behalf of his province. All members of the committee did not agree with the implications of his remarks nor with the emphasis, but we profited from the submission.
The Minister of Finance appeared before the committee. He was heard and questioned by the committee on some matters which required more than technical knowledge on the subject of banking. Others were heard and they made their contributions. Early in the session the Minister of Finance, in discussing members' salaries, spoke of rewarding things in public life: the inner drive for public service which members of parliament and others make at a sacrifice. In this respect I think the study of the Bank Act was one of the rewarding things that came to us during this session.
When the green-backed drapes were opened, there was displayed to us the inner workings of these great banking institutions. We studied them in a pointed, precise and knowledgeable fashion. We righted what was wrong and corrected that which needed correction. As a result, our examination gave to these institutions added strength which we feel confident will be exercised in the public interest, and we brought them a greater measure of public confidence. To the banks it was beneficial; to the people of Canada it was reassuring; to us it was rewarding.
During the greatest period of growth and development of Canada as a nation the banks have kept pace and have served this country extremely well. That has been recognized by most Canadians who have attributed to the banks security, efficiency and convenience.
The principle of the decennial revision is important. Conditions change with the passing of time, and that is particularly true in Canada. By having their charter reviewed every ten years it gives the banks an opportunity to place their record before the people of Canada whose representatives give it careful examination. This gives our banking system added strength.
A network of banking facilities is provided for the convenience of the public, and the view is held in many quarters that Canada is better served by her banking facilities than almost any other country. The branch 
system makes it possible to give service to hundreds of communities which could not otherwise support a bank.
I came away from the committee with a sense of pride in our democratic processes and confidence in our financial institutions.


Mr. Thatcher:: Mr. Chairman, I shall detain the house only for a few moments. I approve of the amendments which are being brought before the committee today. However, there was, in my opinion, at least one shortcoming in the Bank Act before it was referred to the committee. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that one of the major weaknesses of our banking system has been its failure to provide long term credit facilities for agriculture. I am afraid that even with these amendments, the act is still not going to provide such facilities.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there are today in Canada a great many farmers who, for one reason or another, cannot go to their bank and get the kind of credit they need. I think this situation is serious, because since the war the price of land has skyrocketed, the price of machinery has gone up, and it is becoming ever more costly to establish a herd of livestock.
Out in western Canada today the price of a half section of land together with equipment has risen to almost $20,000, and though in eastern Canada it is not quite so expensive, young farmers still find the price is so high that they usually find it impossible to purchase a farm.
There is no place under our present banking system where they can obtain long term credit. I am well aware that over the years the government has brought in the Canadian Farm Loan Act and the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Both of these acts have proved beneficial, but the experience, at least in western Canada, has been that their provisions are too restrictive. Either the down payment required is too high, the terms are too severe, or the ceilings are too low.
I therefore think the time has come, while we are dealing with the Bank Act, to consider whether or not there is something we can do to give Canadian farmers long term credit facilities. We can, of course, extend the provisions of the Canadian Farm Loan Act, or the Farm Improvement Loans Act and I think such a policy might be a good idea. However, may I suggest another alternative.
Earlier this session, parliament amended the Bank Act in such a way that the government now guarantees the losses banks may incur in making a 20 or 30-year loan to urban dwellers on the construction of new homes.

If it is possible to do this for urban dwellers to help them build homes, I do not see why it should not be possible to adopt a similar principle where farmers are concerned. I see no reason why the government could not guarantee bank loans made to farmers over a 20 or 30-year period in the same way for the purchase of farms or equipment.
I think such a policy would give farmers the kind of long term credit they need without being in any way costly to the taxpayers. I hope the minister will give this suggestion some consideration while this act is before parliament.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, the speech of the hon. member for Spadina and the hon. member for Nanaimo interested me and there is just one comment I would like to make. The hon. member for Spadina, and I think we all agree with him including the hon. member for Nanaimo, spoke of the excellent service Canada has received from the banks, but the hon. member for Nanaimo, while speaking very appreciatively in this sense, used a phrase on which I wish to comment. He said, if I took him down correctly, that within 10 years banking would become a public utility. I would just like to say, and I believe most hon. members in the committee will agree with me, that it is a public utility at this moment.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: Before calling clause 2 I should point out that hon. members have before them a reprinted copy of the bill whereas I have before me the original bill with a notation of the amendments which were adopted by the banking and commerce committee. Hon. members will find that in their reprinted copy the amendments are underlined, and I wondered if it would be agreeable to hon. members, in order to save time, if they would merely indicate on any particular clause whether they wish me to read the manner in which the original bill was printed. In that fashion we might perhaps save time; otherwise, when calling a clause, I should have to indicate the nature of the amendments adopted in committee.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would think that suggestion a very practical one, Mr. Chairman.


William Alfred Robinson: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clauses 2 to 13 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 14-Permission to commence business.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, this clause reads:
The bank shall not commence the business of banking until it has obtained from the treasury board a certificate permitting it to do so.
The Bank Act
(2) No application for the certificate shall be made until directors have been elected in accordance with this act.
I wonder if the minister would mind just saying a word as to the functions of the treasury board. I do not carry in my mind the actual requirements which have to be complied with and I think it may be worth while if the committee had them brought to their attention.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that this section has been in the Bank Act since 1871 and has been continued in successive provisions since that time. I assume that the provision is there in order that the treasury board may make certain that the requirements of the act with respect to the subscription of the minimum amount of capital required, the election of directors, their qualifications and so on, have been complied with. A somewhat similar provision existed, as I recall it, in connection with insurance companies which are subject to supervision by the superintendent of insurance.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 18 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 19-Bylaws.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I did not quite realize, Mr. Chairman, when you made your proposal what was actually intended. What we are really doing now is treating all these amendments as incorporated and taking this as a new bill. On page 10, clause 19, I notice there is an amendment which makes the paragraph read as follows:
(h) the amount of discounts or loans that may be made to directors, either jointly or severally, or to any one person, or to any shareholders;
That apparently is an amendment and I would like to have the significance of that explained by the minister.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, I understand it was simply a change of wording. The legal draftsman felt that this wording more accurately expressed the real intent of the clause. As the hon. member knows it is an enabling clause which permits shareholders to make bylaws with respect to certain specific matters, and my information is that this was merely an amendment to the wording to make what was the admitted intention of the clause so much clearer. There is no change in policy.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 35 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 36-Offer of shares of capital stock.
William Alfred Robinson: There has apparently been an amendment to clause 36.

The Bank Act


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I was just going to ask if that might be explained. There seems to have been some important changes made.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As my hon. friend is aware clauses 36 to 39, inclusive, deal with the issue of new stock by the banks. Some substantial amendments were made to these sections in order to enable the banks to issue stock or to offer stock to shareholders residing outside of Canada under the conditions set forth in these sections. As the committee is aware, some jurisdictions require the filing of a great deal more information than is required here in Canada. Broadly speaking, these sections enable the banks to do two things, namely to issue rights which a nonresident shareholder can sell and dispose of or, if they so decide, to sell shares which would be allotted to non-resident shareholders and to apportion the benefit among those non-resident shareholders. That is the purpose of these four sections. I know they have received careful consideration by the committee as well as by the law officers. I have been over them fairly carefully myself, and I think they accurately express what was intended to be done.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
On clause 38-Disposal of shares not subscribed or offered.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Clause 38 is a completely new one as is clause 39. Perhaps I might ask with regard to the two of them at the same time.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I covered those two sections rather briefly in the comment I made a moment ago. They provide machinery for the disposal of shares which are not subscribed for or rights which are not taken up by non-resident shareholders and the disposition of the proceeds.
Clause 39 provides for keeping certain stock books, for the purpose of recording the disposal of shares under clauses 36 and 38.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 39 to 60 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 61-Auditors.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: It seems to me that it would be worth while to have on Hansard something said by the minister with regard to the shareholders' audit. In that connection I suggest that he might make some reference to the duties of the inspector general of banks so that we shall have on record for public information the two checks which are provided, the one imposed and carried out by the shareholders themselves [The Chairman.]
in their own interests and the other imposed and carried out by the government. As the hon. member for Peterborough has said already, we were all greatly impressed with the work of Mr. Elderkin and his knowledge of the banking system. I think it would be worth while to have some brief statement as to the scope and nature of his functions as well as something about the shareholders' audit.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As my hon. friend is aware, the provisions with respect to the shareholders' audit have been in the Bank Act for a good many years. Some changes have been made in this section. Those which were made were rather technical in character but they were made on the suggestion of the institute of chartered accountants. As hon. members will see on examining the section, there is a provision that an auditor, in order to be qualified to serve as a bank auditor, must have been practising his profession continuously during the six consecutive years immediately preceding his appointment. Under the 1944 act these auditors had to be selected from an eligible list furnished by the provincial institutes and published in the Canada Gazette. The minister had the right to remove from that list the name of any accountant.
There is an amendment with regard to the work which may be carried out and the remuneration which may be received by an auditor of the bank. I understand that it has become the practice for auditors to act in an advisory capacity on matters such as income tax, issue of new capital stock, accounting methods and so on which are outside of the scope of a straight audit. Provision has been made that they may be remunerated for such service if approved by the directors. However, I think it is fair to say that there has been no substantial change in the audit requirements so far as shareholders' audits are concerned. Perhaps I might defer my comment on the inspector general of banks until we reach the section which deals with that officer.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 62-Inspector general of banks to be appointed.
Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know that I have any extended comments I care to make on this section. It is not changed in substance from the section contained in the previous act. The office of inspector general of banks was created in the revision of 1924 and has existed since that time. The inspector general, of course, is an officer of the Department of Finance and reports directly to the

Minister of Finance. Broadly speaking, his responsibilities are to see that the banks carry on their functions in accordance with the requirements of the Bank Act under which they operate. In the exercise of his duties he obviously relies to a considerable extent upon information furnished to him by the auditors of the bank. That procedure is quite appropriate. It is desirable that that should be so for this reason. To set up a completely new or separate auditing staff would be quite unnecessary, I think, and unduly expensive. My experience now extends over a period during which we have had two inspector generals. Needless to say, I endorse wholeheartedly everything that has been said here today about the work which has been done by the present inspector general whom I knew for a great many years before he became inspector general of banks. I do not know whether my hon. friend wanted me to elaborate any further on the work of that officer.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No. I think the minister has covered it. I was impressed with one thing in particular, namely the incredibly small staff with which the inspector general works. That fact convinced me not only that he must have some Scottish blood in him but-and this was more important-made me feel that he was not dealing with a lot of non-essential and niggling details but was having regard, as he should, to the principles involved and to important considerations. Am I right in thinking that his staff consists of one or two outside of himself?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think it is two, Mr. Chairman. The job is essentially a personal one. It requires a man with special qualifications. As I say, for the technical data he needs he can rely upon the banks' internal audit and upon the shareholders' auditors. He gets that information from them. It is quite unnecessary to set up a duplicate staff in order to get that information. Then, of course, he is able to get from the Bank of Canada such additional data as they may have. Taking it all in all, I think the introduction of the present system of an inspector general of banks reporting directly to the Minister of Finance, responsible to the Minister of Finance, and with a small staff but who is in constant personal contact with the banks' operations, has proved to be a fairly satisfactory one.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have not the slightest intention of reflecting on any other civil servant, but may I say that if by some means there could be a general inoculation with the same virus as that which infected the inspector general of banks it might produce wonderful results.
The Bank Act


Douglas Charles Abbott: It would please the Minister of Finance greatly.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 63 to 67 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 68-Report to Minister of National Revenue of excess reserves for bad debts, etc.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister say a word about this clause? I think it was one of the clauses which most interested the committee, and I think it is very desirable that the public should have some understanding about it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As my hon. friend is aware, there is no change in this section, which corresponds to section 56 of the previous act. This is the section which provides for contingency reserves, the so-called inner reserves. I do not know that there is very much I can add to what I said before the banking and commerce committee. These particular classes of reserves have existed in commercial banks since time immemorial. There was a fundamental change made in the act in 1944 by which it was provided that the Minister of Finance takes the responsibility of determining whether the reserves are excessive. If they are excessive he can then require the banks to bring the excess back into income and pay income tax on it.
Of course, as I explained to the committee, these so-called contingency reserves can never be available to shareholders until tax has been paid on them. But banking being a special form of business in which confidence is one of the most important factors, if not the most important, the purpose of having these inner reserves is well known, namely, to take care of special situations where unforeseen losses in a particular period might give rise to public misunderstanding and misapprehension if they were made public at the time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think the minister made clear at that time that these inner reserves were not and could not be a device for tax dodging.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I tried to make that clear a moment ago too, and I did before the committee.


Solon Earl Low: I want to make one brief comment. I think in previous years there has been a good deal of mystery about the whole matter of contingency reserves which I believe was very largely removed as the result of the work of the committee this year. I believe that in the course of the committee's hearings it was established that under present circumstances these reserves could not exceed

The Bank Act
$320 million, which was tantamount to drawing aside the curtain and giving us a peek at the facts. Since that time I have been wondering whether it is necessary any longer to keep all the facts hidden. I wonder whether the minister has not also changed his views a bit on that matter. The public are not likely to have any suspicions in their minds if they have access to the facts. I believe that was one reason why the inspector general of banks tabled in the committee a report which showed that the aggregate amount under present circumstances could not exceed $320 million. That has set at rest a good deal of speculation, and I was wondering whether the minister had changed his mind.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not think I have. For the first time the inspector general of banks indicated to the standing committee the formula which is used in determining whether the reserves of a particular bank have reached the permitted maximum. He also gave the maximum which would be permitted for all banks under that formula. I think I indicated to the committee that in a case of this kind I would prefer to have too much in those reserves than too little. It might well be that at some later date it might be considered appropriate to break down that information a bit more, but I do think this is a matter with respect to which we should proceed rather slowly. My understanding is that in other commercial countries such as Great Britain and the United States, whose banking systems are most closely comparable to ours, they do not disclose under any circumstances the amount of the banks' inner reserves. But I am satisfied that as a result of the work done by the committee in 1944, the formula which is now in effect and the responsibility which is placed on the minister of finance there can be, as the hon. member for Greenwood has said, no question that these reserves can be used as a method of tax avoidance.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 69 and 70 agreed to.
On clause 71-Cash reserves.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister make a comment on clause 71, because it does represent some change?


Douglas Charles Abbott: This section really needs to be read in conjunction with the section in the Bank of Canada Act which is here referred to. The method of computing cash reserves is altered. The minimum rate is increased from 5 per cent on a daily basis to 8 per cent on a monthly average basis, and provision is made in the section that the Bank of Canada
may increase this percentage within the provisions of its act as proposed in the 1954 amendments which will be before the committee a little later.


Solon Earl Low: It was with interest that we learned in the committee that at least one of the chartered banks, and perhaps others, has already made rather extensive loans under the new housing act provisions. I believe it was the president of the Canadian Bankers Association who said in his evidence that if any substantial amount of housing loans was made by the chartered banks it would doubtless require some increase in cash reserves. I wonder whether the minister has any information with respect to whether the cash reserves of the banks that have made substantial loans have been increased.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have no information. I would doubt if the banks would need to increase their cash reserves substantially as yet. All the banks, as my hon. friend knows, hold cash reserves in excess of the minimum set out here, some quite substantially in excess. That is a matter of judgment on the part of the individual management, but so far as any information I have is concerned I would think that the banks would not have been required to make any appreciable change in their cash position as a result of the housing loans which they may have made so far.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 72 to 74 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 75-Business and powers of bank.
David Arnold Croll: May I ask that this clause stand for a moment and be dealt with a little later.


William Alfred Robinson: Is that agreeable to the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.
Clauses 76 to 81 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 82-Loans on hydrocarbons.


Mr. Michener:: This is a new section, and I noticed that the minister did not mention it in dealing with the main changes. It seems to me that it is an important extension of the lending privileges of the banks.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Quite right. I covered it in my speech on second reading. I pointed out that section 82 was a new section which was introducing security analogous to the security already existing under section 88, and was designed to enable the banks to lend money on the security of oil in the ground. It is an important section and one, I think, which the committee was right in approving. I am told that in other jurisdictions the banks can

and do lend money on that type of security, and it seemed to me, with the growing oil development in Canada, that we should have a comparable provision in our Bank Act.


Solon Earl Low: I should like to ask the minister whether he has satisfied himself that the taking of such security for loans for oil development will not interfere with provincial rights. I think that matter was brought up and discussed at some length.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I satisfied myself in this way, Mr. Chairman, that so far as the legal position was concerned, I had the benefit of the advice of the officers of the Department of Justice, as well as the legal advisers to the Canadian Bankers Association. I was informed also that this legislation had been discussed with the province of Ontario and the western provinces, and it met with their approval. I took that as evidence that they were satisfied this was legislation that would not conflict with provincial laws in this respect.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 83 to 87 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 88-Loans to certain borrowers and security.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish the minister would say something about clause 88 because there was a good deal of discussion about it. As I say, for the readers of Hansard I believe it is worth saying something about it. I was impressed with the statement made by the president of the bankers association, who was also the general manager of the Royal Bank, to the effect that while this security was so vital to the banks, if my memory serves me correctly he said that in 40 years he recalls using it three times. I was amazed at the figure. If the minister sees fit I should like him to say a few words about that section because it is cardinal to the banking operation and yet there were some questions raised about it to which perhaps the answers were not satisfactory to everybody.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is a very familiar section. It is unique in our Canadian banking system and has existed for a great many years. So far as this revision is concerned, there have been really no changes of great substance. There have been a few procedural changes, and seed potatoes have been added to the list of products on which money may be lent to a farmer. I believe that is the only change of substance, but there have been one or two procedural amendments with respect to the destruction of the rather voluminous records it is necessary to keep.
I think myself that section 88 has performed a very useful purpose in the history
The Bank Act
of Canadian banking. I feel it has provided credit which might not otherwise have been available. I am also one of those who believe that in due course it may cease to be necessary as a form of security to be taken by banks. I would not be at all surprised if in the next revision or some subsequent revision of the Bank Act it would be found that this was no longer necessary as the country has developed. It is a rather expensive way of taking security. There is a great deal of paper work involved. The banks, themselves, are not particularly keen about it. Nevertheless, as I say, I think it has fulfilled a very useful function over the years. I do not think the time has yet come when we could safely do away with it.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 89-Priority of bank's claims.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is a substantial part of this clause that is new. I think it might deserve some comment.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My understanding is that while there is some change in the wording, there is really no change of substance, except in subsection 4. No, I am informed by the inspector general of banks that is really just a drafting change, and there is no change of fundamental policy at all.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 90 agreed to.
On clause 91-Interest exceeding 6 per cent shall not be charged.
Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I have one matter I should like to discuss, though I do not know whether I should mention it here or on clause 75. Since 91 is the clause which fixes the ceiling on interest rates, I think I shall discuss the matter now.
Clause 75 is a new amendment which permits banks to lend money on chattel mortgages. I think this idea is certainly a good one, because many Canadians who are today forced to go to small loan companies will now be able to go to the banks and borrow at considerably lower rates. I noticed in the proceedings of the committee that Mr. McKinnon of the Bank of Commerce suggested that the banks could do a more effective job in making these small loans if they were permitted to charge interest rates of one per cent per month. I was not in the committee and there may have been reasons why the suggestion was not desirable. However the argument Mr. McKinnon put forward was simply that the bank's administration costs in connection with these small loans were so high that they needed a higher interest rate to make the proposition economically feasible.

The Bank Act
It seems to me there may be some sense in Mr. McKinnon's argument. If we want to get the banks into the small loan business, if we want the banks to provide a better service to small borrowers, we must let them charge rates which are economically sensible. As I understand the law today, a bank can charge up to 10-46 per cent by discounting the note originally at 6 per cent, and then obtaining monthly repayments. Mr. McKinnon asked for one per cent per month, which would be about 1-5 per cent higher than the present rate. I believe, Mr. Chairman, the house should give careful consideration before passing this 6 per cent ceiling on the chattel mortgage business.
I have had a good deal of experience with this kind of paper financing. Frankly, from what I have seen of it, I doubt if the present rate is going to be sufficiently interesting for the banks to go after the small loan business. I am only speaking personally. I could be wrong, because as I say I was not in the committee when the evidence came up. However I urge parliament to remember that banks, in dealing with this kind of loan, are dealing with risks which are greater than they have in the ordinary loan. Moreover the cost of servicing personal loans is greater, because the repayments come once a month. I certainly think the 6 per cent ceiling should be maintained on standard loans, but I should like the minister to make a statement as to whether or not we might not have more Canadians benefit if the banks were able to make these personal loans now at a slightly higher rate.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I gave that very careful consideration, Mr. Chairman, but on balance I came to the conclusion I was not prepared to recommend an increase in the maximum permitted interest rate at this time. One reason is that it is quite difficult to distinguish between the different types of loans. While admittedly these so-called small loans to purchasers of individual consumer goods do carry a higher rate of interest, I would be afraid there might be some temptation to get a little higher rate of interest on loans on which perhaps that higher rate was not justified. On balance, therefore, I came to the conclusion we should not at this time raise this permitted 6 per cent maximum.
One other reason, too, was that the banks are now engaged in loans on residential housing, and with the demands on them for ordinary commercial accommodation, I think the result will be that all the resources of the banks will be fairly well utilized in the immediate future. I was, personally, unwilling to recommend an increase in this permitted 6 per cent ceiling. I think the matter

should be studied. Some banks may want to engage in this personal loan business extensively, and others less extensively. I know there is experience in the United States which shows that the rates there, even allowing for escrow deposits and so on, are substantially in excess of the 6 per cent. 1 would not be prepared to take the responsibility of recommending an increase from that figure at this time.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I thank the minister for his statement. He may be correct.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is a matter of opinion, I grant you.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I do hope the government will keep the matter under review. I would remind the minister that even if the rate which Mr. McKinnon asked were granted, it would still be one-half the rate which the small loan companies are often charging for the same type of loan. My reason for making this suggestion is that it might be a progressive step. I believe the banks would go after this type of business if it were more lucrative.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think that is right.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 92 and 93 agreed to.
On clause 94-Transfer to Bank of Canada of unclaimed deposits, etc.
Daniel Roland Michener: Mr. Chairman, this provision requires the banks to pay over to the Bank of Canada the amount standing at the credit of inactive accounts after 10 years of inaction. Of course this act applies only to the chartered banks. It would be a salutary thing if the same provision could be extended to the postal savings bank, as was recommended by the Auditor General. This of course might not be the legislation under which that could be done. The postal savings bank is carrying forward a great many inactive accounts-I believe there are 150,000 of them. One has been inactive since 1878. There appears to be no corresponding provision for the postal savings bank.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, there is not. As my hon. friend appreciates, when anyone puts money in the postal savings bank he is, in effect, lending it to the government at an agreed rate of interest. Whether it would be desirable to turn many people from that department of government to a wholly owned subsidiary, the Bank of Canada, I do not know. I assume no one would question the solvency of either institution. That is probably the reason the difference is made.

The Bank Act


Daniel Roland Michener: I think the chief problem is Mr. Fraser (Peterborough): Just a moment; one of bookkeeping, and the cost of admin- we have the corrected bill before us, the istration.	amended copy.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Daniel Roland Michener: This undoubtedly relieves the banks of a great deal of bookkeeping and administration of accounts that are inactive.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 95 to 120 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 121-Charter to remain in force for calls and winding-up.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: With regard to this clause, and the others following in this group, I believe it would be of interest if the minister would make a general statement as to the consolidated stability and general strength of our banking system.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is no change in substance, so far as these clauses are concerned. I believe there were some improvements in wording. On a number of occasions I have expressed my confidence in the Canadian banking system, which has developed as a result of the process of trial and error that has taken place over a good many years. Some of the defects either in law or in banking management have been eliminated, and today I believe we all agree that we have one of the strongest banking systems in the world. I think, too, that the introduction of a central bank has helped to assure that the banks would be in a more liquid position than they might have been under preceding legislation. I think the very effective work done by the inspector general of banks, as it has been done over a number of years, has contributed to that end.
I know the hon. member for Nanaimo would like me to admit that it is now impossible for a bank in Canada to fail. I am not prepared to make that admission. I think that the responsibility for solvency must continue to be the primary responsibility of the managements of banks, and I think they are discharging that responsibility admirably.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 122 to 134 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 135-Commencing business without certificate.
The Deputy Chairman:: I would draw the attention of the committee to the fact that clause 135 is now 156. If it is agreeable I shall call them in that order. I believe that would be the order which it would be easiest for the committee to follow.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Then if the committee has the reprint, perhaps it would be desirable if I were to slow down in my reading of them and take them in the order in which they appear.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 136 to 143 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 144-Bank doing prohibited business.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: As this is a new section, would the minister comment upon it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think it is just a change in wording; there is no change in substance. I am assured by the inspector general that my recollection is correct in that regard.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 145 to 161 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules A to R inclusive agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: I would remind hon. members that clause 75 was stood aside.
On clause 75-Business and powers of bank.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 75 carry.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I just wish to say that I think this is a very satisfactory clause. Under it I believe chattels are allowed to be accepted as collateral for bank loans. In my view this will help a great deal, and I have heard much favourable comment from different people. They feel that this is a very good move, and that the banking and commerce committee was wise in making this provision.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I congratulate the committee, because I think it is a good move, too. It removes one of the prohibitions, but it limits the field of action, so far as the type of security is concerned, to a narrow field, and quite properly so. It also makes it quite clear that the security to be taken must be taken in accordance with the law of the province in which the loan is being made and the security is taken. We are not creating a new type of banking security; we are simply removing the prohibition which existed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
[Stage Direction]
The Bank Act
Mr. Speaker:: When shall Bill No. 338,
respecting banks and banking, be read a third time? Now?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: By leave.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was not read the second time today; you do not need leave.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that. I take it that at this time hon. members say "by leave" just to show that they are in agreement that this be done today, although they might perhaps have asked that it be done some other day.


Douglas Charles Abbott: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris:: Last week I announced for tomorrow consideration of the estimates of the Department of Transport and the Department of Justice. I understand this is not acceptable to hon. members opposite, and so we shall begin, as I indicated, with interim supply and then take transport and the departments of national revenue, fisheries, mines and technical surveys, and labour


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 27, 1954