1967-01-11

SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD BIRTHDAY ANNIVERSARY OF FIRST CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER

Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate the birthday of one of our greatest statesmen, Sir John A. Macdonald, the first Prime Minister of Canada.
That Canada exists today is probably the result of the effort and determination of Sir John A. Macdonald more than any other man. It is therefore fitting that in this year, the one hundredth anniversary of confederation, we should pay a very special tribute to this man and what he accomplished. It is equally fitting that such a tribute should be made on this day, the anniversary of his birth; and in this house, where the destiny of the country he helped create was debated.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Like so many great Canadians, Macdonald was not born in this country. He came to Canada as a boy when his father and mother emigrated from Scotland. It was in a rough, new country that he grew up and gained an education, and it was in the building of a new country that he won the fame that goes with great and lasting achievement.
We remember Macdonald chiefly as the principal architect of our confederation. Credit for bringing about confederation is shared by many men and is not Macdonald's alone, but it was he who provided the most determined leadership and who went on, after the political framework of federation was accomplished, to endow Canada with the economic sinews of nationhood through building the transcontinental railway, the opening of the west and the encouragement of industry. Under Macdonald the federation established in 1867 was extended from the Atlantic to the Pacific to embrace most of what is Canada today.

Mr. Speaker, 76 years ago, the house was informed of the passing of Sir John A. Macdonald. Another prominent Canadian, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Leader of the Opposition at 23033-737
the time, rose to pay tribute to his friend and political opponent. The words he uttered on that occasion will live on. Here is what the then Leader of the Opposition said:
It is not an exaggeration to say that from the day he entered Parliament, the life of Sir John A. Macdonald became the history of Canada. He was associated with every event, every fact, every development which brought Canada from the position it then held-that of two small provinces with nothing in common save their allegiance, united only on paper-to the present state of progress it has achieved.
After mentioning the issues on which he failed to agree with Macdonald, Laurier went on:
I am happy to erase such differences and to remember only the great services he rendered to our country-to recall that his actions always showed impartial views, a great fund of resources, the highest level of intellectual concepts and, above all, a prophetic vision far above the events of the day and over all that, a patriotic devotion to the prosperity of Canada, to the progress of Canada, to the glory of Canada.

Macdonald invariably recognized that the touchstone of government policy in Canada had to be understanding and co-operation between the two founding peoples. His close working association with Sir Georges-Etienne Cartier was an illustration of his devotion to this principle.
We contemporary Canadians are not given to the worship of heroes, and we have not endowed Macdonald with those superhuman attributes whic hare the property of heroes. Macdonald's achievements are perhaps enhanced by the fact that we know him as a warmly human personality who made mistakes and knew adversity, yet lived a rich and full life and realized the satisfaction that comes with the fulfilment of a great ambition.
What is the relevance of Macdonald's character and achievements for Canadians today? Many of the problems with which he dealt are still with us-how to ensure unity while preserving the diversity which enriches Canadian life; how to achieve genuine and worth while national development. But we are faced, as we well know, with many new problems undreamed of in his time, problems brought about by rapid technological change, by the emergence of revolutionary new forces in the world around us and by the urgent

January 11, 1967
Sir John A. Macdonald need to find ways of preserving world peace, with which Canada's destiny is inextricably bound.
As we face these problems, Mr. Speaker, we would do well to remember that Macdonald and the men associated with him built Canada not by force of conquest but by the exercise of political skill, a talent for finding common ground among opposing points of view and a willingness to share these points of view and to be flexible in the search for solutions to seemingly insoluble problems.
This as much as the physical reality of Canada is a vital part of Macdonald's legacy to Canadians of our generation. During his lifetime Macdonald's stature grew as Canada grew. Today it is growing still. The example of Macdonald and his fellow Fathers of Confederation is a real and living part of our tradition. As we pay tribute to him today let us recall with gratitude his great contribution to the building of Canada. Let us honour him as a statesman of outstanding ability, and let us draw inspiration from his life and his achievements in facing the challenges of Canada's second century.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be to congratulate the hon. gentleman for the eloquent manner in which he has paid a tribute to the architect of Canadian confederation. He has dealt with the various features of the life of Macdonald, his service to his country, his powers of parliamentary acumen, his attitude toward the peoples of both the English and the French races and the other races of men who were here.
Macdonald lived in the era of great uniters of nations; the era of Lincoln, Cavour, Bismarck. These three in their respective countries brought about unity by bloodshed or force. He was able, with the assistance of Cartier, Brown, Tupper, with the eloquence of D'Arcy McGee and all the galaxy of other greats of that era, to bring about Canadian confederation, not through the means of the three leaders I have mentioned but by consultation, co-operation, compassion and common sense.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has mentioned that Macdonald came from the Scottish highlands. In 1812, at the time of the Scottish clearances, the Duchess of Sutherland cleared out the county of Sutherland-shire. Macdonald's mother and father lived 15 miles from where my maternal great grand-

mother and father lived, and both families were driven out at the time of the clearances. Macdonald's father and mother migrated to Glasgow. Mine took the longer route to the Red river, by way of Churchill. It is a magnificent history that Canada has. Too often we have failed as Canadians to express our prideful joy in being Canadians. I had hoped that we would set aside the natal day of Sir John, the founder of this country, as a national holiday. Washington was the father of his country. Lincoln preserved the United States, torn apart by civil war. Their birthdays are remembered. Too often we forget the dramatic greatness of Canada. A question was asked in a certain university, "Why should I be interested in history? What about the past?" The professor answered, saying "Have you ever noticed what happens to a person who loses his memory?" Macdonald, the great parliamentarian though never one of the great orators, possessed an unusual sense of humour. I can imagine him being here today, were he able to be with us, looking at this government without a majority. At one time, in his day, he faced a government with a majority of two. "Why," he said, "it is not even a drinking majority."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The Secretary of State for External Affairs has mentioned Macdonald's achievements of confederation and of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I add to them, his principle for Canada, that it must be an independent nation on the north half of the North American continent willing to co-operate in freedom but insisting on the right that policies for Canada be made by Canadians. That was his contribution.
I think of him as the founder of the Northwest Mounted Police. I think of him as the man who dreamed of the commonwealth and expressed the idea that the time would come when Australia, Canada, and other nations beyond the seas would join with the mother country on behalf of freedom. Incidentally he referred to Queen Victoria, not as queen of the empire-when he received the honour, the first that any colonial statesman had ever received, of being made a member of Her Majesty's Imperial Privy Council-but as Queen of Canada.
His was an amazing life. The hon. gentleman has referred to Laurier's words, eloquent, dramatic, powerful. Yet a few short days before Macdonald and Laurier had been in stem, unremitting-partisan, if you will [DOT]-conflict in the house, but Laurier's speech
January 11, 1967

in the House of Commons on June 8 will live for all time.
When I was 15 years of age I decided to make a public speech on Sir John Macdonald. I rose to heights of eloquence which I thought were worthy of the highest commendation. I memorized my speech. Unfortunately I forgot the last few lines. I was not successful in that oratory contest. The culminating feature of his life was the honour of membership in the Privy Council, knighthood and, after his death, the placing of his bust in St. Paul's Cathedral not far removed from where rest the last remains of Nelson and the victor of Waterloo.
To quote words which are as true today as when they were uttered, or written, on June 20, 1891: Punch's tribute to "Old Tomorrow" as he was known. Sir John never did today what he believed could be achieved tomorrow with co-operation following consultation. Indeed when he was asked what his title would be if he ever received a peerage he said "I suppose I shall be known under the title of 'Lord Tomorrow' ".
Here in part is what Punch said:
Hail to "the Chieftain!" He lies mute today,
But Fame still speaks for him, and shall for aye, Tomorrow-and tomorrow!" Shakespeare sighs,
So runs the round of time! Man lives and dies.
But death comes not with mere surcease of breath To such as him. "The road to dusty death"
Not "all his yesterdays" have lighted. Nay! Canada's "Old Tomorrow" lives today In unforgetting hearts, and nothing fears The long tomorrow of the coming years.
These words I used, Mr. Speaker, in that oratory contest many years ago.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party are most happy to associate themselves with the two previous speakers in paying tribute to the work and memory of Sir John A. Macdonald who was born in Glasgow, Scotland, 152 years ago today.
It is sometimes forgotten that Macdonald was a Scottish immigrant who made good, and who made Canada in the process. For while it is undoubtedly true that men like Cartier, Brown, Tupper, Tilley and McGee made outstanding contributions to the realization of confederation, it was Macdonald's genius which produced the framework.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Even more important were his patience and perseverance which built upon that framework what is now Canada. I think when the history of that period is fully appreciated we shall recognize not only that Macdonald was a 23033-7371
Sir John A. Macdonald great architect in framing the British North America Act, but that his capacity for administration and negotiation made it possible, after 1867, to purchase northwestern Canada from the Hudson's Bay Company, to form the province of Manitoba in 1870, to bring in British Columbia in 1871 and Prince Edward Island in 1873, and finally to bind these various regions together with bands of steel.
For some strange reason we Canadians have never really paid our full due to the memory of Macdonald. He was the father of our country in the same sense that George Washington was the father of the United States of America, but we have never made as much fuss over Macdonald as the Americans made over Washington. I hope we will even now rectify that neglect.
But in some ways it is not monuments, the naming of large cities or highways that really matter. The lasting monument to Sir John A. Macdonald is Canada, what it is and what it has become. It is reported that during the latter part of his life at one of his great rallies an admirer called out "John A., you will never die"; and in a sense, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this is true. That so long as this country continues to grow and to expand, to promote justice for all men under responsible parliamentary government, the spirit of Sir John A. Macdonald will live on.
Yet it seems to me that if he were here in this house today he would ask us to think not merely of the past but of the future. He would remind us that the only value in looking into the past is to grapple with the problems of the present and to enable us better to plan for the future.
Two great problems that obsessed Macdonald's entire public career are still with us. One is how to prevent disintegration from within, the other is how to prevent absorption and assimilation from without. While these two problems have changed in degree and in manner they are the same in substance. One of the great problems that face this country and this Parliament is the problem of how we can live together, two founding races with different languages, different cultures, different outlooks. The essence of this problem is how we can have diversity yet unity, how we can live together, two founding races with mutual understanding and good will.
Macdonald understood, probably better than any other English speaking statesman of his day, the sense of injustice which the French Canadian people felt. He understood better than most of his race that French Canadians wanted not concessions but rights,

January 11, 1967
Sir John A. Macdonald and to be treated as equals in an equal partnership between the two founding races. It seems to me that we in this Parliament could do more than we are doing to promote that kind of understanding and good will in Canada today.
Sir John A. Macdonald also recognized the problem of retaining a Canadian identity, living as we are alongside the richest and most powerful nation in the world, not by being anti-American but by being pro-Canadian. This same problem is still with us, not in terms of the fear of military invasion but in terms of economic and cultural assimilation. I believe it is possible for us in our day and generation to meet this problem, and to meet it successfully just as did the men of 1867.
But, Mr. Speaker, we have other problems that Sir John A. Macdonald did not have. We are living in a period of social upheaval arising out of a great scientific revolution. We live in a period of rising expectations. We live in a time when men and women in our own country and in all parts of the earth want to benefit from the products of modern technology, and want to use modern science not only to improve their standard of living but to improve the quality of life. I would only hope that on this anniversary of the birth of Canada's first Prime Minister we in this parliament, and all Canadians, will use this occasion to look to the past with pride, to the present with determination, and to the future with unbounded confidence in what Canada can be and, by God's grace, will be.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, paying tribute to Sir John A. Macdonald is a pleasant duty in the circumstances and we fully endorse the statements made earlier by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), as well as by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas).
Sir John A. Macdonald, born in 1815, was actually elected prime minister of Canada from the foundation of confederation over which he presided and which he designed, along with other Canadian patriots of the two main ethnic groups, the French speaking and the English speaking Canadians.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
As far back as 1867, when the Canadian confederation was created, Sir John A. Macdonald recognized the existence of two different and separate segments of our nation: the English segment and the French segment.

That is why he associated himself at that time with Sir Georges-Etienne Cartier to draft the Canadian constitution which is now called the British North America Act.
Then Mr. Speaker, like all those around him, Sir John A. Macdonald saw the importance of drafting a constitution acceptable to both the English speaking and French speaking groups. The ultimate goal of Sir John A. Macdonald was to achieve out of disunity, out of misunderstanding, the unity of Canada. For instance, although Upper Canada and Lower Canada were at each other's throat, Sir John A. Macdonald was advocating the union of those two segments, those two groups to build a united nation, a strong nation, a nation which could see to the development of Canada's natural resources not only in 1867 but in the future.
Mr. Speaker, if since 1867 misunderstandings have occurred, Sir John A. Macdonald is not responsible, the constitution or the confederation is not to blame as much as certain elements, certain individuals who have put their own personal views above everything else instead of following faithfully the spirit of confederation and of the Canadian constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, this brings me to say that in 1967, on the day we are celebrating Sir John A. Macdonald's 152nd birthday, we find people, particularly in the province of Quebec-the province where 75 federal Members of Parliament come from-who seek to spread discord, misunderstanding, error and lies by trying to affix on the back of cars small plates that say that confederation was and is one hundred years of injustice for the province of Quebec.
Now, when Sir John A. Macdonald and the others who were with him founded this confederation in 1867, their idea was not to create injustice for Quebec, for Ontario, for the other provinces, but they set their hearts upon giving and insuring the most complete justice to all provinces which then united into confederation.
Mr. Speaker, there have undoubtedly been cases of injustice since the beginning of confederation, but it cannot be said that we have suffered from injustice for a hundred years. French Canadians in Quebec have continued the struggle for a hundred years, and there have been some memorable battles. It is true that in our province, like in others, there have been battles for the recognition of our
January 11, 1967

rights. But this does not mean that we have suffered from injustice for a hundred years; that is not true.
Mr. Speaker, the main idea behind the confederation over which Sir John A. Macdonald presided was unity in mutual respect of the elements constituting this confederation. To those who maintain today, in 1967, that the province of Quebec suffered injustices, I say this: those who, in the province of Quebec, maintain that Quebec had to contribute toward confederation without receiving anything in return are trouble makers and liars. True, like the other provinces, the province of Quebec had to contribute her share, to enter confederation, just as anybody has to pay his dues to belong to an organization. But if we had to pay our share to belong to confederation, we also benefited from confederation during the hundred years of its existence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate the birthday of Sir John A. Macdonald, I feel reluctant to mention what is going on in certain areas of the province of Quebec, particularly in Montreal, where bombs go off, where abusive language is used toward everybody, where even self respect is gone. I am against such goings on on the part of young people, most of whom are under the spell of some educators or professors who came here from Marxist or other countries of Europe, Asia, from Algeria or from African countries, and who are teaching revolution to our young people.
And we see what is going on in 1967. Injustices are not committed by those we might suspect. In fact, in the heart of Montreal, they are committed by some young Montrealers. And they are the ones who will pay for this tomorrow. What will the price be, I do not know, but they will be held responsible.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up too much of the time of this house, but I am happy to say on behalf of my colleagues and myself, that we join with all those who, with dignity, respect and grateful remembrance, celebrate today this anniversary not as blind persons, but as reasonable and logical people, who can understand each other even if they do not share the same political views. We are happy to associate with all these people who are human beings, above political parties.
Sir John A. Macdonald was, first of all, a human being. Second, he was a great Canadian, responsible for a confederation
Sir John A. Macdonald which, despite its defects, has been useful to the population as a whole.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for all of us to join in the tributes which have already been paid to the memory of Sir John A. Macdonald. Certainly, speaking personally and on behalf of the members of our party, I regard it as an honour. I believe that as a master politician and a wise statesman, Sir John A. Macdonald was the instrument which led the people of Canada, and those who held elective office at that time one hundred years ago, into confederation. For this we today owe a great debt to Sir John A. Macdonald.
In Canada we may not worship heroes, but I believe it would be for our own good were we to pay just a little more attention to those who legitimately are the heroes of our heritage. Yes; we owe it to the past and to the future that to those who not only served their country well but who also in the destiny of their time and this nation served to forge and weld our country into the great dominion and nation which it has become, be properly and adequately recorded in the annals of our history.
There were other great men in Macdonald's day-Georges-Etienne Cartier, George Brown and others-but it was Sir John A. Macdonald who brought them together and led them. It was largely due to his efforts that political differences were put aside in favour of standing together on the fundamentals on which they agreed. There is a great lesson for us in this very fact. As I have read the records in the early Hansards of this Parliament, the records concerning the Charlottetown and Quebec conferences and the records of the legislatures of the early provinces, including those of Upper and Lower Canada, I find that Sir John A. Macdonald led those who served with him on the public scene one hundred years ago into three general areas of agreement which were basic to confederation and which are necessary and essential today.
The first of these was a determination that there should be a nation called Canada, separate and independent from all other nations. They held this determination in a mutual conviction. They were dedicated to it; they believed there was a destiny for this nation which at that time was only a subject of their own vision.

January 11, 1967
Sir John A. Macdonald Second, Mr. Speaker, they believed that under a system of majority parliamentary rule, which was to be the basis for government in this country, the majority could be strong only when the rights of the minorities were protected and safeguarded. In those days they had all of the minorities we have today-the religious minorities, political minorities, language minorities and economic minorities -but, most important of all, these men were dedicated to the fact that the basic minority was the individual. They believed that government neither had the right to give nor take away these rights; it had instead the responsibility to protect and perpetuate them.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.j
It was on this basis that they found themselves able to come together to draft the first constitution. But even more important than either of those things, these men believed that Canada could only achieve these purposes, provide this way of life and remain united if she continued as a nation under God. In fact they gave Canada a motto, one which many of us have forgotten if ever we really knew it. It was simply "He shall have dominion from sea to sea", a quotation from Psalms. I suggest that any of us who want to remind ourselves of this fact could do no better than go up into the Memorial Room and see these words engraved in the glass of the beautiful windows of that room. We have only to read what is inscribed over the archway as we enter this building or see it written in abbreviated form on our coat of arms. These men believed that only in this way could Canada accomplish what was their objective and vision for this country.
Sir John A. Macdonald was dedicated to these principles, and he led the men of his day on this basis.
Rather than a new constitution today, more urgent is the need for us to rededicate ourselves to the spirit of our present constitution and the details of that tremendous constitutional document which I believe in the future will be regarded for its great worth even more reverently than it has been in the past or is at the present time. If we could live up to the spirit of that constitution many of the differences that divide us today could be put aside in favour of the great areas of agreement which I am sure we all have.
Today it is difficult for us even to come to agreement on an amending formula for the constitution of 1867. How much greater was the feat, then, of these men one hundred years ago in bringing together the entire

document and standing in agreement upon it. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we owe a great debt to Sir John A. Macdonald. We have many lessons to learn from the confederating fathers. There is no better way of doing that today than recalling, remembering and respecting the life of this great man. It is our nation, Canada, which today stands as his living memorial.


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, I would not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is it the wish of the house to suspend the provisions of provisional standing order 15 (2) (a) to allow hon. members to make additional contributions to these comments.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, I would not be doing my duty as the representative of Prince Edward-Lennox if I did not rise at this time to support the many eloquent tributes that have been paid to the Lennox boy, the man whom we revere and recognize today, Sir John A. Macdonald, first Prime Minister of our country and at one time the representative in this house of the electoral district of Lennox.
I also would not be doing my duty to my constituents if I did not rise at this time to pay tribute to him, because in our part of Canada, the land of Macdonald, the land of the Loyalists, his memory is ever green and the principles for which he stood are still a force, and a strong one, in our principles of nationhood. This Lennox boy who roamed the fields of Adolphustown, which is one of the smaller rural municipalities of the province of Ontario, left his indelible mark upon the life of our area.
I recall and remind this house that on the south shore of Hay bay, in a rural setting close to the waters of that beautiful bay where the land was settled and developed by the Loyalists in 1785, there is a stone cairn marking the nearby spot where his father operated a farm in the early days of the life of the Macdonald family in Lennox. On that cairn there is a fitting tribute to this great man, which says:
It was from these fields that he drew the inspiration that enabled him to weld the scattered provinces into a nation from sea to sea.
I am very impressed today with the tributes paid by all hon. members to our first Prime Minister. I was reminded of another inscription when the hon. member for Red Deer mentioned the inscription on the front of the peace tower which is a fulfilment of
January 11, 1967

the principles for which Macdonald and all the Fathers of Confederation worked, laboured and stood for. There is another inscription on the west side of the peace tower that describes those principles just as well. It is high above eye level and very few people notice it. It reads:
Where there is no vision, the people perish.
That is why I rise today in tribute to this great man of vision, who as a boy trod the fertile fields of Lennox and later the streets of Napanee and Picton as a young and newly articled lawyer in the service of George MacKenzie and who in later years came to this capital to labour as the main architect in the building of a great nation, for which we are thankful today. Macdonald was the immortal, first Prime Minister of this country, greatest among the great, who served Canada and the everlasting principles for which she stands today, a product of his genius, a free and independent nation respected throughout the world.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) rising on the same subject?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria (B.C.)):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It might come as a surprise to you, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to remind hon. members of this house that in the years 1878 until 1882 Sir John A. Macdonald was the representative of the constituency which I now have the honour to represent, Victoria, British Columbia. I would like to associate myself with the remarks that have been made today in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: By way of conclusion may I say that hon. members are invited to foregather later this afternoon at six o'clock in room 16 to fraternize in the spirit of Sir John A. Macdonald day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all of us, I should think no one would appreciate that gesture more than Sir John A. Macdonald himself.
On behalf of the Prime Minister, who as everyone in this house knows, is in Kingston today participating in commemorative events in honour of Sir John A. Macdonald, I should like to table a copy of a minute of a meeting of the Committee of the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency the Governor General on January 4, 1967.
This minute of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, ad-
Sir John A. Macdonald vises that a proclamation be issued fixing Wednesday, the 11th day of January, 1967 for the commemoration of the birthday of Sir John A. Macdonald, the first prime minister of Canada, in this year of observance of the centennial of the confederation of Canada.
The house will be interested to know that the Prime Minister is today making an announcement that is, in my judgment, in every way consistent with the principles Sir John A. Macdonald held dear. He has announced that His Excellency the Governor General has been pleased to approve his recommendation that the premiers of all the provinces of Canada be appointed members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. The membership of the premiers in the privy council in this centennial year symbolizes in a most fitting way the unity in diversity that is so basic a feature of the history of this country. It was to the achievement and preservation of that unity, while respecting the diversity that the provinces embody, that Sir John A. Macdonald devoted his life.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a release of the Prime Minister's office announcing that His Excellency the Governor General has approved the Prime Minister's recommendation that the premiers of the provinces be appointed members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.



NATIONAL ANTHEM


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
January 9-the Prime Minister-
That a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to consider and from time to time to report upon the subject matter of the following proposed resolution: "That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to provide that 'O Canada' shall the the National Anthem of Canada while 'God Save the Queen' shall be the Royal Anthem in Canada":
That ^ 12 members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, be members of the joint committee; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21, this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later this day.

January 11, 1967
Questions



ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER RULE CHANGES

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
January 9-The Minister of Public Works-
That a special committee of 11 members, to be designated at a later date, be appointed to consider and from time to time to report upon the advisability of making permanent, with or without amendment, any or all the several changes in the procedure of this house adopted for the first session of the twenty seventh parliament on January 21. 1966, and such other changes as the committee may deem suitable to promote the more expeditious dispatch of the business of the house.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later this day.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How many school boards have been established on Indian reserves since the policy was announced in 1964?
2.	On what reserves are they located?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1 and 2.
Although statements may have been made at the federal-provincial conference on Indian affairs in 1964 on the desirability of delegating to the band more responsibility in the operation of schools on the reserve by organizing school boards under provincial legislation, no definite policy was announced at that time, as this is a subject for continuing consultation with provincial governments. The term "school board" in relation to Indian education can refer only to a school board established under provincial legislation. Although section 113 of the Indian Act authorizes the minister to enter into agreement with the provinces for the establishment of school boards on reserves, there is only one example of such action being taken at Moose Factory in northern Ontario. This action was made possible because Ontario had enabling legislation for the establishment of a rural school section and the appointment of the Moose Factory Island school board with Indian representation organized to administer funds approved by the department; it has no power to 
raise money for education through local taxation. Almost 50 per cent of Indian children in schools are now in provincial systems, with excellent arrangements for local liaison and administration. Local participation in administration of federal Indian schooling will be expanded as quickly as applicable legislation and local circumstances permit.


STAFF TURNOVER, INDIAN AGENCIES, NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO
Mr. Reid: 1.	What has been the rate of staff turnover among the Indian agencies in the electoral districts of Port Arthur, Fort William and Kenora-Rainy River in the last five years?
2.	What are the reasons given by transferring staff and what action has the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development taken to stop or slow down this turnover?


Arthur Laing: 1.
Electoral district of Port Arthur
Establish-	Separa-	Rate of Turnover*Year	ment	tions	%1961-62	7	-	-1962-63	7	-	-1963-64	7	1	14.31964-65	8	3	37.51965-66	10	2	20.0Electoral	district of Kenora-Rainy River	Establish-	Separa-	Rate of Turnover*Year	ment	tions	%1961-62	23	-	-1962-63	23	2	8.71963-64	25	4	16.01964-65	29	3	10.31965-66	33	6	18.1Electoral	district of Fort William	Establish-	Separa-	Rate of Turnover*Year	ment	tions	%1961-62	4	1	251962-63	4	-	-1963-64	4	-	-1964-65	4	-	-1965-66	4	-	-
* Rate of turnover is interpreted to mean the percentage of separations in relation to total establishment.
January 11, 19B7



2.	Reasons given	%
Transfer and promotion	50
Transfer to other employment	20
Retirement	10
Full time home responsibilities	10
Resignation because of ill health	5
Dissatisfaction with working conditions 5
Turnover of staff is of continuing concern to the department and close attention is being given to staff development, the continued improvement of working conditions, and other aids to employee morale.


PROTOTYPE HYDROFOIL ANTI-SUBMARINE VESSEL
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What was the approximate amount of damages by fire to the prototype hydrofoil anti-submarine vessel at Marine Industries Limited, Sorel, Quebec?
2.	When is it now expected that this vessel will be delivered to the Canadian Navy at Halifax?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1.	The Department of Defence Production, the Department of National Defence and the ship's prime contractor, have undertaken a joint assessment of the extent of fire damage as well as technological and supply problems and costs associated with the carrying out of repairs to the hydrofoil ship. It is anticipated that this review will be completed within the next two months and will provide reliable cost and schedule data for both rectification of damage and completion of ship construction at Sorel, P.Q. Pending completion of the joint review, initial estimates place costs directly attributable to the fire at between $3.5 million and $4 million. Consequential effects of the fire may be in excess of $1 million.
2.	Until completion of the assessment, the delivery date cannot be forecast with any degree of accuracy.


DESERTIONS OF GREEK SEAMEN IN CANADIAN PORTS
Mr. Haidasz: 1.	How many Greek nationals deserted ships in Canadian ports and requested immigrant status in Canada from 1960 to 1966, inclusive?
2.	How many of these Greek seamen were granted permission to remain in Canada?
3.	How many of these Greek seamen (a) were deported (b) are awaiting deportation order?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1.	From January 1, 1960 to November 30, 1966, 2,629 seamen of Greek citizenship were 23033-738
Questions
reported as having deserted their vessels at Canadian ports. In the same period, 1,549 Greek ship deserters were either apprehended or surrendered voluntarily to immigration authorities and indicated a desire to remain permanently in Canada.
2.	455.
3.	(a) 1,072; (b) 22 are awaiting decisions on the final disposition of their cases.
4 DESERTIONS OF YUGOSLAV NATIONALS IN CANADIAN PORTS


Mr. Haidasz: 1.	How many Yugoslav nationals deserted ships in Canadian ports and requested immigrant status in Canada from 1960 to 1966, inclusive?
2.	How many of these Yugoslav seamen were granted permission to remain in Canada?
3.	How many of these Yugoslav seamen (a) were deported (b) are awaiting deportation order?


John Carr Munro: 1.	From January 1, 1960, to November 30, 1966, 66 ship deserters of Yugoslav citizenship were either apprehended or surrendered voluntarily to immigration authorities and indicated a desire to remain permanently in Canada.
2.	31 were allowed to remain in Canada.
3.	(a) 31 were deported, (b) Four are awaiting decisions on the final disposition of their cases.


REVENUE FROM PERCENTAGE OF INCOME TAX
Mr. Bower: 1.	What is the total revenue derived from one percentage point of personal income tax for each the years 1960 to 1966 inclusive?
2.	What revenue is derived from one percentage point of personal income tax, broken down by provinces, for each of the years 1960 to 1966 inclusive?
3.	What is the total revenue derived from one percentage point of corporate income tax for each of the years 1960 to 1966?
4.	What revenue is derived from one percentage point of corporate income tax, broken down by provinces, for each of the years 1960 to 1966 inclusive?
5.	On what basis do the federal government and provincial governments share the revenue derived from succession duties and is the federal government considering any proposals for change in the present basis of this distribution?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: 1.	See table I.
2.	See table I.

January 11, 1967
Questions
3.	See table II.
4.	See table II.
5.	The governments of the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia impose succession duties. The government of Canada imposes an estate tax and pays to any province which does not impose succession duties, 75 per cent of the estate tax attributable to the province. The federal estate tax is abated by 75 per cent in British Columbia. When the
government of Canada in 1963 offered to increase the abatement to 75 per cent, Quebec and Ontario chose to continue to receive an abatement of 50 per cent, but in addition to receive 25 per cent of the federal estate tax attributable to each. The proposed fiscal arrangements between Canada and the provinces outlined in the house by the Minister of Finance on October 31 last do not provide for any change in the basis for sharing the revenues from this source of taxation.
Table I
Total Revenue Derived From
One Percentage Point of Personal Income Tax (Excluding OAS Tax) Allocated by Province*
(1% of federal personal income tax payable)
1960-61 to 1966-67
($'000)
Year	Nfld.	P.E.I	. N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	Total1960-61	175	29	392	267	4,364	8,736	867	609	1,303	2,107	18,8491961-62	188	32	407	292	4,810	9,370	914	641	1,479	2,219	20,3521962-63	183	35	423	280	4,822	8,895	859	650	1,356	2,128	19,6311963-64	207	41	472	315	5,477	9,910	935	751	1,456	2,406	21,9701964-65	239	47	538	371	6,383	11,480	1,037	914	1,658	2,806	25,4731965-66	(est.)	282	56	644	430	7,471	13,571	1,272	1,020	1,983	3,283	30,0121966-67	(est.)	338	67	763	526	9,052	16,358	1,467	1,291	2,347	3,980	36,189
* The manner of allocating personal income tax by province is specified in Part XXVT of the Income Tax Regulations.
Table II
Total Revenue Derived From One Percentage Point of Corporate Income Tax Allocated by Province*
(1% of Corporate taxable income)
1960-61 to 1966-67
($'000)
Year	Nfld.	P.E.I.	.N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	Total1960-61	488	110	692	559	9,349	14,593	1,488	1,022	2,405	3,247	33,9531961-62	485	150	743	593	9,451	14,975	1,536	990	2,631	3,403	34,9571962-63	409	60	689	523	9,049	15,714	1,435	949	2,528	3,775	35,1311963-64	620	75	721	593	10,025	17,264	1,659	1,211	2,771	4,326	39,2651964-65	827	79	749	669	11,149	18,432	1,869	1,270	2,814	4,671	42,5291965-66	(est.)	764	92	887	730	12,342	21,255	2,043	1,490	3,411	5,326	48,3401966-67	(est.)	970	93	879	785	13,079	21,624	2,192	1,490	3,302	5,480	49,894
* The manner of allocating corporate income tax is specified in Part IV of the Income Tax Regulations.

January 11, 1967


SECOND NATIONAL PARK, SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Soulham: L On the basis of its announced policy, when will the government commence the development of the second national park in Saskatchewan?
2.	Where will this second national park in Saskatchewan be located?
3.	What is the estimated cost of this national park development?


Arthur Laing: 1. A requirement for the establishment of a national park is that the area be turned over to the federal government by the provincial government, free of all encumbrances. Studies concerning the various aspects are proceeding at the present time. The final decision as to where and when the new park will be established is one which requires joint agreement between the federal and provincial governments.
2.	See answer No. 1.
3.	Any estimates would be premature at this time.


CANADIAN CONSULATE IN U.S.S.R.
Mr. Mandziuk: 1.	Where in the U.S.S.R. will the Canadian consulate be established?
2.	If established in Kiev, would this lead to diplomatic exchanges with the Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic?


Paul Joseph James Martin: 1. There are no immediate plans to open a Canadian consular office in the
Questions
U.S.S.R., although as part of the understanding between the Canadian and Soviet governments concerning the establishment of a Soviet consulate general in Montreal the Soviet government has agreed that Canada may establish such an office in a mutually agreed Soviet city whenever it wishes to do so. The eventual location chosen will naturally reflect the best judgment of the place most appropriate for looking after Canadian interests at the time.
2. Kiev would be one of the logical and natural choices for the location of a Canadian consular office. Establishment of such an office there would be by agreement with the government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.


WINTER WORKS REQUESTS, KAMOURASKA AND L'lSLET COUNTIES, QUE.
Mr. Dionne: 1.	How many requests were made by municipalities of the counties of Kamouraska and L'Islet under the winter works incentive program in 1965 and 1966?
2.	How many of these requests were granted and how much money was allocated to each of these municipalities?


John Carr Munro: 1. County of Kamouraska, 1964-65-30; 1965-66-27. County of L'lslet, 1964-65-5; 1965-66-8.
2. County of Kamouraska, 1964-65-30; 1965-66-27. County of L'lslet, 1964-65-5; 1965-66-8.
11662	COMMONS DEBATES	January 11, 1967
Questions
Federal payments in respect to these projects are as indicated hereunder.
County Kamouraska
1964-65	1965-66
No. of	Fed. Govt.	No. of	Fed. Govt.Municipality	Projects	Payment	Projects	PaymentAndreville	2	$ 3,679.74	2	$ 2,686.22Kamouraska	2	7,323.70	2	4,099.41La Pocatiere	1	36,107.58	13,304.19St. Pacome (village)	1	4,272.22	1	St. Pascal	1	6,001.05	2	St. Alexandre	1	10,628.88	1	18,304.70St. Andre	4	31,400.87	5	33,632.76Ste Anne de la Pocatiere	1	304.52	1	6,351.82St. Denis	1	2,088.29	1	Ste Helene	3	21,427.62	5	15,837.32St. Joseph de Kamouraska	1	2,165.00	1	2,648.21St. Louis de Kamouraska	1	9,012.13	St. Onesime d'lxworth	2	10,330.13	St. Pacome (Parish)	1	2,573.80	1	5,812.94Woodbridge	2	18,465.65	1	15,684.05Mont Carmel	1	2,700.00	1	8,943.47St. Athanase	2	21,500.76	1	16,692.94St. Eleuthere	1	24.606.52	1	St. Gabriel-Lallemant	1	5,203.55	1	696.70St. Pascal	1	4,612.04	County L'lslet	1964-	65	1965-66	No. of	Fed. Govt.	No. of	Fed. Govt.Municipality	Projects	Payment	Projects	PaymentL'lsletville	$	1	$ 8,931.95Turville	1	3,498.00	1	10,626.52St. Aubert	1	3,028.47St. Cyrille de Lessard	1	3,211.32	1	7,109.99St. Damase de L'lslet	1	2,911.68	1	5,107.93St. Eugene	1	464.05	1	Ste Felicite	1	1,826.84	1	2,532.88St. Marcel	1	14,155.31


RETRAINING PROGRAM NO. 5
Mr. Hales: 1.	How many people were enrolled in program 5 in Canada during the month of November, 1966?
2.	How many people have graduated in the program 5 course since its inception?
3.	Are those people enrolled in program 5 included in the unemployment figures for Canada?


John Carr Munro: 1. Figures for enrolment of trainees in program 5 in Canada during the month of November, 1966 will not be available until the latter part of January, 1967.

2.	There were 96,152 persons reported as having graduated from program 5 courses from April 1, 1961 to March 31, 1966.
3.	Persons enrolled in program 5 courses are included in the unemployment figures for Canada.


EXPENDITURES ON MANPOWER
Mr. Allard: 1.	Is a sum of $100 million, or less, available for the manpower re-training program in Canada?
2.	If so, is this sum available only to technical workers or is it also available to clerical and auxiliary workers?
3.	Through what channels are these funds distributed, the provincial Departments of Education,
January 11, 1987

directly to profesional organizations and unions, or otherwise?
4.	What sums have been spent so far in each province for the fiscal year 1966-67?


John Carr Munro: 1. Less than $100,000,000 is available specifically for manpower re-training programs.
Approved federal estimates for all programs under the Technical and Vocational Training Agreement for the fiscal year 196667, total $224,335,000. This amount includes provision for the following expenditure items: (a) The cost of buildings and equipment for all programs, $142,475,000. (b) The operational cost of adult re-training programs, $58,095,400.
(c)	The operational cost of other programs, including in-school technical and vocational programs, $23,764,600.
2.	The money is available for all occupational groups below the professionel level.
3.	The funds are distributed principally through the provincial Departments of Education but also through provincial Departments of Labour.
4.	The amount spent by each province during the current year is not as yet recorded in the form requested. During the period April 1 to November 30, 1966, the amounts paid to each province, against claims for Training in Co-operation with Industry (Program 4), Training of the Unemployed (Program 5), and Training of Disabled Persons (Program 6) were as follows: Newfoundland, $96,603; Prince Edward Island, $68,218; Nova Scotia, $863,765; New Brunswick, $121,713; Quebec, $2,334,605; Ontario, $9,417,379; Manitoba, $824,622; Saskatchewan, $362,578; Alberta, $617,464; British Columbia, $468,901; Yukon Territory, $90,765; Northwest Territories, nil: Total, $15,266,613. In addition to the above claims, all provinces have claimed a total of $73,687,588 for capital expenditures and $13,159,967 for the operational costs of other programs.


CONSTRUCTION OF REPLICA OF ''PELICAN&quot;
Mr. Keays: Has the government authorized the construction of a replica of the Pelican and, if so (a) who has undertaken the construction of this ship and at what cost or price (b) what program has the government planned for this ship?


Arthur Laing: 1. No.
Questions


LANGUAGE QUALIFICATIONS OF ENERGY DEPARTMENT STAFF
Mr. Laprise: What is the present number of (a) English speaking (b) French speaking (c) bilingual civil servants in each division of the Department of Energy Mines and Resources?


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: (a)	(b)	(C)
English French Bilingual speaking speaking
Administrative
services	232	2	75
Surveys and			
mapping branch	594	2	185
Marine sciences			
branch	529	_	56Geological survey	335	-	101Mines branch	500	_	138Geographical branch	71	_	23Observatories	branch	161	_	21Polar continental	shelf project	23	_	6Water research	branch	72	1	16Water resources	branch	304	_	51Resource development branch 20	Total 2,841	5	672


SALARIES OF HEALTH DEPARTMENT NURSES
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): What is the salary for Department of National Health and Welfare Nurses I in Toronto, Montreal Winnipeg, Vancouver, Halifax, Sidney, Hamilton' Fredericton, Regina and Windsor, Ontario?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Nurse I
Location Toronto Montreal Winnipeg Vancouver Halifax Sidney Hamilton Fredericton Regina
Windsor, Ontario
Salary range $3,750-$5,300
3.750-	4,950
3.750-	4,950
3.750-	5,300
3.750-	4,950
3.750-	4,950
3.750-	4,950
3.750-	4,950
3.750-	4,950
3.750-	4,950

January 11. 1967
Motions for Papers


Mr. Jack A. Irvine (London):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister concerned, through you, when I might have an answer to question No. 1,675 which has been on the order paper since June 13 of last year.
Furthermore, I have not yet received an answer to starred question No. 2,086 which has been on the order paper since October 25 of last year. There is some information which I am desirous of obtaining, and I do not think it is a very difficult question to answer. I understand that starred questions are supposed to receive some semblance of priority.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to speak on a point of order and call the attention of the appropriate member of the government, who I believe in this case is the Minister of National Revenue, who is not here, to question No. 2,185 on the order paper which deals with a case before the tax appeal board and which was placed on the order paper by me on November 18 of last year. I see no reason for any particular delay in answering this question.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. J. B. Stewarl (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 194 is acceptable to the government. Would you please call motion No. 191. I ask that the remainder be allowed to stand.


C.B.C.-APPLICATION OF LABOUR CODE
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 191-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do Issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other documents exchanged between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, or any official thereof and any other person, group or organization, excepting any other department or agency of the government, relating to the application of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code or the deferment or suspension of any part thereof.
Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minisier of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State may I deal with this motion. I wish to inform the hon. member that there have been no correspondence, telegrams or other documents exchanged between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or any official thereof and any other person, group or organization relating to the application of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code or the deferment or suspension of any part thereof. Therefore I suggest to the hon. member that he might wish to withdraw his motion.
[Mr. MacEachen.l


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the C.B.C. has not written to anybody about this obviously I should withdraw the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


EDWARD ELROY HUNT-POST MORTEM REPORT
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 194-Mr. Howard:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the report of the pathologist who performed the autopsy or post mortem into the causes of the death of Edward Elroy Hunt, an inmate of the B.C. Penitentiary who died on June 26, 1966.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I raise a point with regard to notice of motion for the production of papers No. 72, appearing on page 34 of today's order paper. I noticed that it was not called today. In view of the fact that this notice of motion bears a January date, I ask that the order paper be amended to show that it is January 1966, unless of course the Minister of Finance is able to indicate that the motion may be passed soon. If the motion is to stand for another two or three months I should like it to be clear that this is now a hardy perennial.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I inform the hon. member who has this notice on the order paper, and other members of the house, that I do not expect it will be possible to present the report before January 31. Perhaps it will be possible to do so by the middle of February, so perhaps for the sake of clarification the order paper should show that it is January 31, 1966.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


NATIONAL ANTHEM
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to raise a point of order having to do with item No. 14 on page 5' of today's order paper. I have been seeking to find what I believe to be an appropriate citation with regard to this order, ever since the government notice of motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister on page 3 of the
January 11, 1967

order paper has already been dealt with. Your Honour will observe that that notice of motion deals with the same subject matter as the proposed resolution appearing on page 5. It is clear in my mind that there is a provision in the standing orders or the precedents of the house that you cannot have two motions on the order paper dealing with the same subject 

especially two government orders. I am sorry I have not been able to find the appropriate citation, but I suggest with respect that the matter be taken under consideration. I am raising it now because I believe the correct procedure would be for some member of the cabinet to ask for leave to withdraw motion No. 14. I think it would be most inappropriate to have a motion stand on the order paper, to be dealt with in the house when the same matter is being dealt with by the committee. I think the motion should be withdrawn and the order discharged.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: It is a matter of the method the house chooses to use in dealing with the resolution. The method proposed, as will be seen from a reading of the motion on page 3, is to have the committee deal with the subject matter concerned. Having dealt with the subject matter, as is the practice with bills in almost all cases, they would then deal with the resolution before the house. If the hon. member will read the motion carefully he will see that it refers in precise terms to the motion on the order paper, and outlines the method of dealing with the motion on the order paper.


Mr. Fulion:: I agree with what the house leader has said. Indeed, my point is that the two motions do deal with precisely the same thing. My recollection, although I cannot put my finger on the incident, is that rulings have been made in the past in such cases to the effect that the proper course is for the order previously appearing for the attention of the house to be discharged. Then when the committee reports, of course, the motion is returned to the order paper and taken under consideration.
I believe, as a matter of fact, this course was followed last night with regard to the bill regarding research which was referred to a standing committee of the house. I believe we passed an order discharging the order for consideration in committee of the whole until the standing committee reports to the house. I believe the same course should be followed here.
Inquiries of the Ministry


George James McIlraith: The hon. gentleman is ignoring one point throughout this discussion, and that is the motion on page 3 is a procedural motion relating to a measure before the house. Item No. 14 on the order paper is a substantive motion relating to a substantive matter to be passed by the house. This is the difference between the two.


Mr. Speaker:: Both hon. members have spoken twice on the same subject, so each has been out of order once. I will take the matter under advisement and make a ruling in due course.


LABOUR RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour, now that there has been a rejection by the shop and crafts union of the railway of the 24 per cent increase proposed by the federal mediator, what is the government's intention as to its future course of action in connection with this matter?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, a request has been received by me from the shop crafts for the appointment of a board of arbitration. Since the Maintenance of Railway Operation Act provides that a set of regulations is to be drafted, and since perhaps more than 60 per cent of the railway employees involved have not yet voted on the mediator's proposals but their vote is expected within the next 14 or 15 days, I do not think it would be fitting to draft more than one set of regulations. We are waiting until all the votes are in before taking further action.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity of Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the statement made by Secretary General U Thant of the United Nations to the effect he is convinced that a cessation of the bombing of north Viet Nam is an essential prelude to any negotiations, are any representations being made by the government of Canada to
11666	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Washington in support of the position taken by the Secretary General of the UN?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have had an opportunity of reading the statement of the Secretary General. I can say that I have had discussions with the government of the United States during the past six weeks. The Canadian government is actively engaged in trying to bring about negotiations for a settlement of the conflict in Viet Nam. We regard the cessation of the bombing as one of the necessary steps. I feel, in view of the negotiations that are under way between Canada and other countries, that it would not be in the interests of the solution we have in mind for me to go any further.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if through the International Control Commission or through any other channels, the government has any information regarding the alleged feelers being put out by the diplomats in Hanoi as to the possibility of negotiations in the immediate future? Is the government optimistic that these feelers are, in fact, being put forth and that there is some hope of negotiations being conducted?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot profess to be aware of all the attempts that are being made toward preliminary negotiations. I can say that the government is aware of particular negotiations, apart from those in which Canada may be interested. We have been in communication with the government or governments concerned in these negotiations and we are giving them every encouragement we can.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Robert Norman Thompson: I should like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has he any statement to make to the house regarding the critical situation which is developing between Israel and Syria, particularly as it relates to Canadian personnel, their safety and their peace keeping duties under the UN?


Paul Joseph James Martin: During the last few weeks, as my hon. friend knows, there have been a

DEBATES	January 11, 1967
number of incidents of increasing gravity on the Israel-Syrian frontier. We are concerned about these developments, and I have often so indicated to the parties involved. We hope that both sides will adhere strictly to their obligations under the armistice agreement and allow calm to be restored on that frontier.
The UN observers stationed on the Israel-Syria border have negotiated cease fires during several of the exchanges which have taken place. We trust that both sides will make full use of the UN peace keeping machinery in the area in order to settle their immediate differences.



GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
I should like to ask him whether he has made himself acquainted with the brief submitted to his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin) by the northwestern Quebec chambers of commerce with regard to the gold mining problem. Can he tell the house whether he has any solution to that gold mining problem in northwestern Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to tell the hon. member that, in my opinion, this question is much too general to be put at this time.



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Is it the government's intention to table the first volume of the report on Canada's space research activities dealing primarily with the project known as HARP, and will he comment on the government's rather equivocal position with regard to this project.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minisler: May I take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.
January 11, 1967



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs. It was announced in Le Devoir on January 5, 1967 that American interests plan to build two fish processing plants on the French islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. The French islands could therefore serve as landing bases for the American fishing fleet, and I would ask the minister whether this proposal was put forth by officials of his department in an effort to secure an agreement on the 1964 legislation calling for a 12-mile fishing limit off Canada's coast?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, sir.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question.
Would the minister tell the house what progress is being made toward establishing the geographical co-ordinates from which base lines can be drawn and the 12-mile limit established, as called for in the legislation passed in 1964?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking a very general question which is asking for a general statement of policy. I do not think that can be permitted at this time.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs; I apologize for not giving him written notice. Is the minister giving consideration to introducing amendments to the Veterans Land Act, or possibly to the regulations, to provide for changing circumstances in the purchase of properties for veterans, and also to changing the regulations with respect to the administration's relationship with the real estate fraternity?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there are no proposals to amend the act. Constant reviews of the regulations are being made. From time to time we do amend them and some of them are under current study. I think that if the hon. member would let me know the specific area
Inquiries of the Ministry in which he is interested I could make inquiries and reply to him more directly, if that is satisfactory.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Norlh):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is there a deputy minister of agriculture at the present time? If so, what is his name?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking for statistical information, which should not be asked for at this time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of some importance and urgency not only to members but to agricultural organizations and the entire farming community. They would like to know whether there is a deputy minister and, in particular, who he is. If there is no deputy minister of agriculture at the present time, they would like to know who is the acting minister so that they will know whom to contact with respect to a number of matters.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps it would be easier if I allowed the minister to answer the question.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Barry is still acting deputy minister of agriculture, as well as acting as chairman of the Canadian Dairy Commission until such time as his successor is appointed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then, Mr. Speaker, I must protest against the minister having misinformed the house the day before yesterday. On January 9 I asked him this question, as reported at page 11537 of Hansard:
Is Dr. S. C. Barry still the deputy minister of agriculture and, if not, when did he cease to occupy that position?
The minister's answer was:
Dr. Barry is now the chairman of the new dairy commission.
Quite evidently the minister gave us the impression, and I think gave the country the impression, that Dr. Barry was no longer the deputy minister of agriculture. I think the minister owes the house an apology.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the statement found in Hansard is perfectly correct; he is chairman of the Canadian Dairy Commission.
January 11, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR RELATIONS



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF ORDER EXTENDING MARITIME UNIONS TRUSTEESHIP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is he tabling today, or if not today when will he table, the order in council extending the application of the Maritime Transportation Unions Trustees Act, and also the annual report of the board of trustees.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, it would be difficult for me to table the annual report because it has not come into my hands. With regard to the proclamation, pursuant to the statute I must table the proclamation within a limited number of days, and I can assure the hon. member and the house that it will be tabled within the next few days.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister would take the opportunity on motions to explain to the house the reasons for passing that order in council?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I would be very pleased to, Mr. Speaker.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether there have recently been, or are now, negotiations with the government of British Columbia regarding federal assistance with respect to the cost of the bridge across the first narrows in Vancouver? If so what is the present position?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the premier of British Columbia has made representations on this subject; I do not know that they can be termed negotiations.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A supplementary question. Is the minister in a position to confirm a report in a Vancouver paper that the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister made a statement, or gave information to the mayor of Vancouver, that the federal government would be willing to advance part of the cost of this bridge on a repayment basis, which might be handled by the imposition of tolls.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. gentleman realizes that he cannot ask a question about the accuracy or otherwise of a press statement.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was asking the finance minister whether he was in a position to confirm that that is the position of the federal government?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm the statement in those terms.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, during the recess many of us in this house became more aware of the critical housing shortage which is facing Canadians, especially those in the lower income brackets.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask a question. Questions cannot be prefaced by statements.


William Heward Grafftey: In view of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures published Wednesday showing a rise in the cost of living due to increased housing costs and rents, may I ask the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, whether the government is seriously considering housing legislation which will regard housing policy as a social welfare necessity and not a fiscal instrument.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, that is rather a general question or statement involving several questions of policy. The government is aware of the seriousness of the housing situation, and when the government decides to make any change in its policy same will be announced to the house.


William Heward Grafftey: In view of the fact that the crisis is here now, and many Canadians in the low income groups want housing now-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is now submitting an argument. He should ask a question.


William Heward Grafftey: May I ask a supplementary question. Will this announcement be made very, very soon so that this situation can be relieved very, very soon?


Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. On December 7 I addressed a question to the Minister of Labour
January 11, 1967

in connection with the housing problem. I asked him at that time whether he was in a position to tell the house what response private lenders had made to meet the housing problem, and he took the question as notice. I am wondering whether he is now in a position to give the house a report on this situation.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: In answering this question, which I am very glad to do, Mr. Speaker, may I say that most of the investment or lending institutions-and when I use that term I am referring to the mortgage and insurance companies

have been giving some thought to this problem, as I hope have the banking institutions in view of the amendments to the Bank Act which have been before this house. We know from discussions that the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing have had with some of these institutions, that the lending programs are under consideration and I hope to have a report on the situation within the next 10 or 12 days. I will be making a statement on the subject toward the end of the month; I think it would be premature to do so in advance of that date.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: 
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, generally, the R.C.M.P. makes investigations regarding people who want to come to Canada. There are a few exceptions, for instance Great Britain and Ireland. Instructions have been given so that from now on the procedure applicable to Great Britain and Ireland will also apply to France.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister
Inquiries of the Ministry may I address my question to the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State. Can he advise the house whether a decision has been reached by the government with respect to the installation and provision of transmission facilities owned by the federal government for the purposes of educational television. If that decision has been reached, when is it proposed that the facilities will be functioning? There are concurrent facilities that would be available to educational networks in the province of Alberta if it were not for the federal government's intention to enter this field.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I will see that this question is brought to the attention of the Secretary of State.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the extensive publicity given to the maturing of the Canada Pension Plan this month, would the minister consider presenting the first monthly cheque of $1.25 in front of the centennial flame?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Churchill.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: While the minister is considering his answer, may I ask him if he would allow the former minister, the present Secretary of State, to present the largest cheque, which will be for $10.42.


An hon. Member:: Not bad.
On the orders of the day:


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. As neither the minister nor his assistant is present at the moment perhaps Your Honour will permit me to ask my question tomorrow afternoon.


Mr. Enns:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understood that the hon. member for Greenwood proposed to ask a question tomorrow?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but the parliamentary secretary has returned. Nevertheless I shall ask my question tomorrow.
January 11, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry On the orders of the day:


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: My question is addressed to the Minister of Public Works and it concerns the notice of motion which appears under his name on today's order paper. In view of the fact that debating procedural matters in the House of Commons can become an occupational disease, may we on the back benches have the assurance of the minister that no one who has served for more than five years in the house will be appointed to this committee?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, my question concerning confederation is addressed to the Minister of Finance who has now held that portfolio for a year.
Would the minister now be in a position to state how many centuries it will take the Canadian government to pay off the debts it has accumulated since 1867?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question does not appear to be too urgent. The hon. member has referred to the number of centuries, and I think it would be better to put the question on the order paper.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the extensive advertising campaign being carried on to inform the recipients of old age pensions of the procedure they should follow in making application for supplementary payments, can the minister tell the house what procedures will be followed to assure that all old age recipients among our Indian and Eskimo peoples eligible for the supplementary payments will be assisted in filing the necessary applications.


Arthur Laing: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this will be done.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.
A moment ago, someone asked him whether old age security pensioners will receive application forms. Will forms be sent to all old age pensioners across Canada, not only when they reach 68 or 69 years of age but from the moment they receive their pension? Will forms be sent to these people, so that they may apply for the $30 monthly supplement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, application forms will be sent to all recipients of old age security who will then be in a position to apply, if they wish, for the supplement.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question. Do I take it that age does not matter, that from 65 years of age on, everyone will receive an application form. Is that it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. Only persons in receipt of old age security will receive application forms. As my hon. friend knows, old age security is not payable at age 65 at the present time, although it will, on a reducing basis, be paid at that age in a few years.


David Réal Caouette: I have another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are provinces such as, say, Quebec, where under some kind of allocation the people receive a pension at age 65, entitled to receive help from the federal government, so that the $30 is applicable to those people over 65 years of age?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the recipients of old age assistance, the category to which my hon. friend refers, would be eligible for increased assistance on a shared basis under the Canada Assistance Plan.



LABOUR GAZETTE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Labour. Considering that for the last 12 months I have several times pointed out to the minister that the French edition of the Labour Gazette is issued three or four months late, and the minister understandably seems to be embarrassed by this situation, would he be ready to consider the suggestion
January 11, 1967	COMMONS
that a special committee be set up to investigate the matter, to find solutions and report to
the minister as soon as possible?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is, no. We have a very effective committee of this house, as demonstrated by the work that it has done during this session of parliament in dealing with matters relating to manpower and labour. Only under very special circumstances ought such a matter be referred to a standing committee, and in this instance I question whether it is necessary at all to refer the matter to a committee.
Earlier this session I reported considerable improvement in our efforts to arrange for simultaneous publication of the English and French editions of the Labour Gazette. I then expressed the hope that by the end of the year simultaneous editions might be possible. That that could not be achieved will be evident, for two reasons: In the first place the chief of the section was taken ill when trying to meet the difficult objective he himself had set. He was away from work for several weeks but is now back, in good health, and progress is being made toward the desired objective. There is another reason. For several months the department has been pressing the bureau of classsification for additional appointments to the staff.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Those have not yet been made.


Mr. Speaker:: As we are limited to a 30 minute question period perhaps the minister might use the shorter answer.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Siegfried John Enns: My
question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will he implement the recommendations of the standing committee on health and welfare, involving certain amendments to the Criminal Code. I would add that no fiscal expenditure is involved in implementing this recommendation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the recommendations of the committee are under consideration at the present time.
Inquiries of the Ministry EDUCATION



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON STUDENT SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, on December 2 last the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) addressed a question to the Acting Prime Minister about the student scholarship program. In his answer the Acting Prime Minister, who is again today the Acting Prime Minister, said he would refer the matter to the Minister of Finance. Could the Minister of Finance inform the house when we might expect action by the government on the continuously delayed student scholarship program?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when a decision is made it will be announced.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What year?



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: have a question to address to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I wonder if the minister would say whether he plans making an early statement about the reported criticisms of his department made by the former commissioner of the Northwest Territories with respect to the alleged lack of decision by the department in dealing with the Carrothers report. Will he, in his reply, include a statement about the problems of the Northwest Territories?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity last evening of speaking with Mr. Sivertz. During the conversation I complimented him on concluding a long term of good service to the people of Canada. I also had the opportunity of telling him that I was disturbed and concerned over the statements he had made. After our discussion last night he told me he was greatly reassured and intended writing to the members of the council to that effect.



SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD DECISION AS TO CREATION OF NATIONAL HOLIDAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My
question is addressed to the Secretary of State
11672	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry ior External Affairs, in the absence of the Prime Minister. Has the government reached a decision not to have January 11 as a national holiday? On the other hand has it already decided to create a new national holiday, as presumably announced by the Secretary of State last night at Edmonton?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: I do not know What the Secretary of State is purported to have said but I would direct the attention of the hon. gentleman to the reply to this kind of question which was made by the Prime Minister on Monday last in answer to one put to him by the Leader of the Opposition.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, I wish to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister.
When does the government hope to receive the report of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission on bilingualism and biculturalism? This question has been addressed to the Prime Minister by members several times, and he answered that the report would be available early in 1967. I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has some information for the house on that subject.


Paul Joseph James Martin: One thing is certain, sir. I may say that we will not have the report this week. However, I shall inquire further.



CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Mitchell William Sharp: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation with an authorized capital of ten million dollars to be subscribed for by the Minister of Finance and paid out of the consolidated revenue fund at such time as the corporation may require: to authorize the minister to make loans to the said corporation the aggregate outstanding amounts of which shall not at any time exceed five hundred million dollars;

DEBATES	January 11, 1967
and to provide further for the employment of staff and for other matters consequential upon or incidental to any of the foregoing.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.


Mitchell William Sharp: The purpose of this resolution is to authorize the introduction of the bill to establish the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. At this stage I intend to deal only with the general approach of the government to the matter of deposit insurance and with the major features of the proposed legislation.
On July 5 of this year when I introduced the bill to revise the Bank Act, I said it was the government's intention to introduce legislation in the present session of parliament to establish a system of deposit insurance for federally incorporated institutions which accept deposits, and to make it available to certain provincially incorporated institutions if such institutions and the provincial government concerned wished to take advantage of the opportunity.
During the past few months in the course of preparing legislation to establish deposit insurance, we have studied the system of deposit insurance which has operated very successfully in the United States for more than 30 years and have given provincial authorities an opportunity to express any views they might have, in particular as to how they thought the proposal might affect institutions operating under provincial supervision.
The government realizes that deposit insurance is not the answer to all the problems involving the supervision of financial institutions in this country. Discussions are going ahead in other fields which are closely related to the objectives of deposit insurance. In this connection I might mention securities regulations which were recently the subject of a conference between federal and provincial representatives. Finance companies are in another category, partly in the field of securities regulations, but to some extent also posing problems of a distinctive institutional character. It seems clear that action on a number of fronts will be necessary in the public interest. As I have already mentioned in the house, I have asked my departmental officials to look at the more general questions surrounding the adequacy of the control that now exists in the general field of finance companies, and I have indicated that we are willing to confer with the provinces on this matter if they so wish. I might add that I
January 11, 1967

believe that improvements designed to protect the public interest are not only a responsibility of governments; there is a useful role to play for those in the business, with a view to achieving higher standards.
In the meantime it seems desirable to get ahead with deposit insurance which is a major step in itself. One of the reasons for wanting to proceed now with this measure is that it is of interest in relation to the banking legislation being considered by the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs.
It is expected that the proposed system of deposit insurance will achieve three important objectives: (1) The primary objective, of course, is to ensure the safety of those depositors who are usually not in a position to judge for themselves the financial soundness of the institutions to which they entrust their savings. (2) The Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation will also have power to function as a lender of last resort for deposit-accepting institutions, providing needed liquidity at times of crisis when such institutions may not have access to their normal sources of liquidity. (3) Member institutions will be subject to inspection. It will be an objective to bring about a gradual improvement in the minimum financial standards of deposit-accepting institutions across the country. There will be a sympathetic and helpful attitude toward institutions which wish to co-operate in this objective.
Membership in the deposit insurance plan will be obligatory for chartered banks, Quebec savings banks and those federal trust and loan companies which accept deposits from the public. Provincially incorporated trust and loan companies which accept deposits from the public will be eligible to apply for membership if they have the consent of the province concerned.
It is not proposed that deposit insurance be available to credit unions and caisses populates, which are co-operative institutions dealing with their members rather than public deposit-accepting institutions. To a considerable extent mutual insurance schemes have already been established for the local credit unions. At the federal level there is the Cooperative Credit Associations Act which provides for the incorporation by special act of the parliament of Canada of co-operative credit societies. Amendments to the Co-operative Credit Associations Act are presently under consideration. Among the matters which will be reviewed is whether or not a lender of last resort facility is needed in connection with the operation of these societies.
Canada Deposit Insurance Corp.
Deposits of the public will be insured up to a maximum amount of $20,000 per deposit account, an amount which seems enough to cover the type of depositor needing this kind of protection. It has been thought best to leave room for flexibility in the definition of insurable deposits.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
It is quite likely that new instruments will appear from time to time, and it seems very desirable to be able to rule whether or not they should be regarded as insurable deposits. It is proposed, therefore, to define the kinds of deposits eligible for insurance under by-laws of the corporation which will require the approval of the governor in council, but they will, of course, include all the usual forms of savings and deposit accounts.
It is expected that the greatest need for the lender of last resort function of the Deposit Insurance Corporation is likely to arise in relation to the demand for quite short-term deposits of insured institutions. To the extent to which the liabilities of financial institutions are of a long-term character, given good management they should be able to protect themselves by holding an appropriate distribution of assets. However, in the case of institutions with very short-term liabilities, it is difficult for them both to make any profit on their operations and to keep enough short-term assets to protect themselves against all emergencies. Even if they maintain high standards of financial management, events taking place elsewhere in the financial system, perhaps outside Canada, can have repercussions that produce serious liquidity problems for them.
Turning now to specific measures involved in the proposal to establish the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, I shall mention the major features.
1.	It is proposed to establish a new crown corporation to be called the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. It will be under the management of a board of five directors, including a chairman of proven financial experience from outside the public service to be appointed by the governor in council. The other four directors will be the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the Deputy Minister of Finance, the Superintendent of Insurance and the Inspector General of Banks.
2.	Parliament is asked to provide the $10 million share capital of the corporation and a deposit insurance fund will be built up out of premiums of l/30th of one per cent per annum on the insured deposits of member institutions. When the fund has reached adequate
January 11, 1967

Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. proportions it is provided that the rate of premiums may be reduced under certain circumstances.
3.	The corporation will invest its share capital and the deposit insurance fund in securities of the government of Canada. Earnings on these investments will be available to meet operating expenses and, if there is sufficient net income, to pay dividends on its share capital.
4.	To enable the corporation to act as lender of last resort to its members in case of need, either by lending on the security of members' assets or purchasing such assets when that is appropriate, the government will be authorized to make advances to the corporation up to a total of $500 million. Any such advances would be expected to be repaid by the corporation from recoveries of the assistance provided to its members or from the deposit insurance fund.
The government realizes that it may not be possible in the present session of parliament to complete consideration of the bill, although I hope we can do so. It will be useful in any case to make known the intentions of the government and, if the bill has to be introduced again in the next session of parliament, there will have been an opportunity to benefit from public discussion of the measure.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, this has indeed been a long awaited day, and without trying to be petty about the criticisms that might be offered by members of the committee I would just convey to the minister once more the various criticisms that have been levelled against the government both by members of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, and by witnesses who appeared before that committee, on the delay in bringing forward this legislation.
The standing committee has been studying the Bank Act since October. An integral part of revision of the Bank Act included not only the so-called extension of the competitive element for banking but also control of those engaged in banking and banking practices. These could not be separated one from the other. We got the government's proposals with regard to the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Bank Act, and now at this late date we get its proposals with regard to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.
The minister did not state whether it is the intention merely to proceed to first reading of the bill. If I remember correctly, in reply to a question which I put to him on an earlier


occasion the minister said it was the intention just to disclose the bill in this session and then leave it for study and comment upon it by the financial community, following which the bill could be dealt with in a subsequent session of parliament. Does the minister wish to confirm that?


Mitchell William Sharp: This is a perfectly legitimate question in the light of what I have said. The government realizes now that there is perhaps even greater urgency for the early passage of this measure than there was when it was referred to by me at the time of the introduction of the revisions to the Bank Act, and the government would be prepared to proceed with all stages of the measure during this session of parliament. Nevertheless it would be desirable for an opportunity to be given to the general public, and to those institutions who might wish to take advantage of this facility, to study the bill.
This is a new venture in Canada. It raises issues of quite a different character from anything we have seen previously. But if in fact it is clear that the facility will be used generally, and will be a useful addition to our financial mechanism, the government would be prepared to give the measure greater priority than it had originally intended, and to try to get it through during the present session. But I think we should leave it over until we see whether there is a fairly broad degree of acceptance of the idea. I might add that the government is quite prepared to consider amending this legislation if, upon examination, there appears to be need for major Changes.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, the minister has given a very careful half answer. The government has certain options it may exercise with regard to this measure. The first, and least desirable, is to proceed with all stages through the house. The second is to give the bill first reading and then let it stand for a time, proceeding at a later date with the rest of the stages. There are plenty of precedents for that course. The third option is that we should proceed with a certain amount of celerity, certainly not later than next week, to refer the bill to the finance, trade and economic affairs committee. This is absolutely the least that we in the opposition would accept.
The minister must agree with me that this measure is so inherently bound up with the consideration of the Bank Act that we must consider its provisions to see whether it will fill the lacunae which we feel exist within the Bank Act. The officials of the Canadian
January 11, 1967

Bankers Association, and other witnesses who withheld comments about deposit insurance, would then have an opportunity of commenting upon it, in addition to which the minister must appear before the committee and be questioned. He has a case to make for this measure and I think he should make it before the standing committee.
If the government intends to proceed with the bill this session, then it should be referred to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs at the earliest possible opportunity. The minister should consult with the government house leader so that arrangements can be made for this to be done without any delay.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, may I say that the government wants to do only what will facilitate very careful consideration and passage of this legislation. If reference of the subject matter of the bill, to the committee, would help in this regard, we would have no particular objection; on the other hand, I would want to be sure that in fact this would help facilitate the passage of the Bank Act itself, which is the first order of priority. I do not agree altogether with what the hon. member said to the effect that this is vital to the passage of the Bank Act. I do believe the committee is quite right in wishing to have a look at the bill to see what the government has in mind, but I am quite sure the Bank Act could be approved without approval of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation legislation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I could not disagree more with the minister in his view that the Bank Act meets the requirements. The Bank Act is only half a loaf so far as the control and examination of the people engaged in banking practices is concerned. From a historical examination we know that the government's position changed in respect of Bill C-102 and Bill C-222 because of the Atlantic Finance fiasco. Now the minister has revised his position because of the Prudential Finance fiasco. Will another fiasco be required next week in order to get the government to agree that the committee might consider this matter in relation to the Bank Act. I do not think the minister really can be serious in proposing that type of thinking.
Now, in respect of the question of deposit insurance, I may say that personally I have grave objections to it. I think this is the wrong way in which to go about this matter. I think it has resulted in a confusion of two sets
Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. of difficulties, and that this has been caused by some emotional panic on the part of the government. First, the government has refused to face up to the fact that-and I have a lot of legal references to this effect-the government has all the authority it wants under the constitution to control banks and banking practices. One has to look only at the B.N.A. Act to see that there is control over banking, control over currency, control over interest, and over many other related matters. These are strictly within the jurisdiction of the Crown of Canada. There is no shared jurisdiction with anybody else. In fact I would say that if there now are some near-banks which are engaged in banking practices, this is because they have moved into a vacuum by default. If the provincial governments say that they now have the right of control over near-banks within their jurisdictions merely because they have incorporated these organizations and merely because they have been present at the engendering of these corporations, then I think they merely are shouting from the position of squatters' rights; that is all there is to it.
Under the constitution it is clear that the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over banking. Let any provincial authority shout all it wants: The constitution is clearly set forth. If one wants legal authority, the minister could refer to the case of the Attorney General of Canada v. the Attorney General of Alberta which is a Privy Council case concerning this matter. This is a clear indication that banking is not limited to that as practised in 1867. Banking is a matter of continuing evolution. The government might have amended the Bank Act to provide for a definition of banking-a more flexible definition of banking-so that any corporate entity carrying on banking or banking practices, regardless of its incorporation, must come in under the umbrella of the Bank Act and be subject to the control of the Bank Act and the inspections of the Inspector General of Banks.
To me the matter is very simple; but the government has not faced up to this. The government has said that it now recognizes, for some political reason-and it can be attributed only to political reasons and not to legal or financial control reasons-that the provinces now will be allowed to have something to say with regard to banking and banking practices. The provincially incorporated institutions carrying on banking practices will have the right to adhere voluntarily to this scheme of deposit insurance, provided the provinces consent. Well, this is giving a legal
January 11, 1967

Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. right to the provinces in a field in which the constitution says they have no jurisdiction, let alone joint jurisdiction. It must be remembered that he who would assert provincial jurisdiction in this matter must show more than provincial jurisdiction. He must show that there is joint jurisdiction or that there is no exclusive jurisdiction on the part of the federal government.
With all respect for those who may assert this for their own reasons, and perhaps as a bargaining position, I cannot agree with them in view of my reading of the B.N.A. Act. Therefore I submit that I object to the scheme of deposit insurance as a cure for the ills that are presently existent in, shall we say, the financial institutions picture in this country. There is the ancillary problem of proper supervision of finance companies. That is a horse of an entirely different colour. Also there is the question of the control of securities operations. This is another matter, and it is not cured by the deposit insurance because finance companies who do not take deposits do not come in under deposit insurance, and therefore can go broke at the rate of one a week, and there will be no help for anyone under the type of insurance program that is proposed by the government. Therefore, and for a third reason, I say that I object to the program of deposit insurance because it is not needed by those people who are going to be compulsorily involved.
The chartered banks will be the milch cows of this scheme. They certainly have by far the greatest volume of deposits and they will be required by law to submit to the inspections to which they already are subject. They will have to pay the premium and this will be passed on of course to their customers. It is the poor old public which is paying for nothing in this particular instance. Why? To create a scheme to which other people will adhere.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is hoped.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes; as the hon. member for Kamloops said it is hoped that the public might be more receptive to dealing with nearbanks if their deposits are guaranteed. On the one hand the government in its amendments to the Bank Act says it wants the banks to be more competitive, and on the other hand, with this deposit insurance scheme the government is bolstering up the banks' competitors; therefore it is not making the banks more competitive.


Mitchell William Sharp: No; it is making the whole system more competitive.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister says it is making the whole system more competitive. In my province, for instance-and I am sure the minister has received this answer from the treasury of the province of Alberta-it is deemed that the treasury branches of that province will not fit into this scheme because they are mere emanations of the treasury of the province and are therefore not nearbanks, incorporated trust companies or what have you. In so far as the banks of the province of Alberta are concerned, it is the treasury branches, with some of their operations-and I wish we could get them into the daylight where they could be examined-that are the biggest competition to the chartered banks.
The government has proposed this scheme. I wanted it to come before the committee so we could examine it. We want to know the reaction of the junior trust companies, the reaction of the bankers, to this type of scheme. I am pleased to see that included in this scheme is a provision for lender of last resort. A scheme of deposit insurance that did not have such a provision would, I think, be quite meaningless if we are going to improve the security of our financial system.
We would like to know the details in this respect, because lender of last resort provisions will present a real difficulty. There should be some penalty provided in this connection. In my estimation there should be provisions with regard to the right of takeover of an operation, the right of merging or of sale of an operation, as is available under the F.D.I.C. in the United States. I would have thought the minister could have told us a little more about the inspection provisions and the standards that the near-banks will have to meet. The minister is asking us to accept something in principle. I think that in so far as the standards of inspection that must be met is concerned, they must be those of the Inspector General of Banks and we should apply nothing less than the standards for investments under the Trust Companies Act required by the Inspector of Insurance. These are the minimum standards that we could accept.
I do not think we should ask that any near-bank applying for participation in the deposit insurance scheme should be already up to those inspection standards. After all, if they are to maintain their position of liquidity we cannot insist that they shall engage in a
January 11, 1967

fire sale of their investments. Therefore, I would think that on the basis of a certain minimum performance a near-bank could apply, be granted an initerim certificate and be allowed a period of maybe three to five years in the initial instance to bring itself up to the standards that will be set for investment levels.
I would give this example to the minister as a clear indication of what I mean. Under the Alberta Trust Companies Act it is only the first million dollars of a provincially incorporated trust company that is subject to examination by a special officer in the department of the attorney general. That is the position now; prior to that the examination was carried out by an officer in the Department of the Superintendent of Insurance. A trust company could have investments of $5 million. The legislation does not specify which is the first million dollars subject to examination, but $1 million is subject to examination and $4 million could be the most absolute garbage. Let us say that a number of these trust companies have investments, that some of them meet the requirements and others do not. Give them the chance under an interim certificate and continuing inspection to bring themselves up to the standards laid down. Then possibly a great many more of these institutions will be brought into the fold.
The last point I should like to make at this time, since I feel we should see the bill at the first opportunity, is that even the smallest trust companies should have available the opportunities of a deposit insurance scheme. It should not be left merely to the big fellows or the bigger fellows in the field. After all, a person who has $10,000 of deposits in "X" company-a small trust company-is just as worthy of protection as the person who has $10,000 of deposits in "Y" trust company-a much larger corporation.
I have one more point, Mr. Chairman. The minister has not indicated in his remarks the relationship of this scheme to provincial schemes. We have read in the press that a scheme may be proposed by the province of Quebec. Has the province of Quebec agreed that it will allow its institutions to participate in this particular scheme? After all, it must be remembered that such major trust companies as the Montreal Trust Company and the Royal Trust Company are Quebec incorporated. They are among the biggest operators in the field. They are not federally incorporated trust companies. What will be the relationship of this scheme to companies of that nature?
Canada Deposit Insurance Corp.
Will it be within the ambit of a proposed Quebec scheme to apply only to the deposits of those companies within the borders of that province, and the remaining operations all across Canada of those two companies will come under the federal scheme?
These are questions to which answers must be furnished by the minister. From what we have read in the press, I think we will get into a ludicrous situation, one that furnishes me with one more objection to the general proposal. If one province asserts and is given the right to set up its own deposit insurance scheme, surely it has no greater right than any other province to do the same thing. The net result would be that theoretically we could have 10 deposit insurance corporations in the country.


An hon. Member:: Eleven.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, 11; we could initiate one in Yellowknife and the Yukon.


Mitchell William Sharp: All the federal trust companies, all the banks.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes; it would be a terrible mix-up. Therefore I come back to my original premise, namely that the government should have the courage of its convictions in this regard. I am sure that if the minister had been allowed by the government to which he belongs to really be courageous enough to define banking as it should be defined in the Bank Act, everybody would be brought in and it would not cause any great confusion. In that event, there might be a lawsuit brought by a trust company in some province, but that would not invalidate all the provisions of the Bank Act. If someone had the determination to take the matter to the top legal authority, we would get a legal definition. I am sure, on the basis of my own research in this regard and the advice I have received, that the federal government has complete and exclusive authority over banking and banking practices in this country. I hope the minister is able to answer the questions I have raised. We will certainly be interested in seeing this bill.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I want to say at the outset that we are not opposed to the principle of the insuring of deposits, the principle that presumably is embodied in this bill. We think that the legislation as outlined by the minister is seriously inadequate in several particulars. In our view the deposit insurance has shown to be valuable where it has been
January 11, 1967

Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. adopted, that is, as far as I know, chiefly in the United States of America. It is a form of protection to the small depositors, and it is a worth-while step to take not only to protect the small depositors but to give confidence to those who are dealing with our financial institutions. However, two things are essential in such legislation: first, that the deposit insurance must be accompanied by adequate regulation and inspection. Without it deposit insurance would be little more than an invitation to people to exploit the insurance fund, to carelessness and to abuse. I did hear the minister saying in his opening remarks that those who are under the act would be subject to inspection. If this is so we want to make sure that the inspection staff is adequate and that there is not only inspection but the laying down of standards and regulations so that the inspection may be worth while.
The second essential in addition to regulation and inspection-and this is clearly deficient in the proposed legislation-is that the legislation should be compulsory in respect of all banking institutions whether or not provincially incorporated.


Mitchell William Sharp: It will be.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I heard the minister say, and I presume I did not mishear him, that this legislation was to be compulsory for banks and federally incorporated trust and loan companies, but that it was to be voluntary for provincially incorporated companies. Not only was it to be voluntary for them, the legislation was not to be applied to them; they could not even come in without the consent of various provincial governments. As the hon. member for Edmonton West said, a veto of the provincial governments has no constitutional validity whatever and is totally wrong in principle and, as I am trying to point out, is wrong in practice.
The matter was very well put in an editorial-which I presume the minister has read-in this morning's Globe and Mail under the title "The Insurance Essentials". I want to put this on the record because I cannot put it any better. It reads:
So deposit insurance there is to be. But will it be available to any trust or loan company that is prepared to pay the premiums? Or will a condition of coverage be that the company agrees to meet federal standards, file reports as required by the federal authority, and submit to federal inspection?
Mr. Sharp has not said. Yet without these conditions deposit insurance could be worse than useless. Worse, because it would not ensure that trust and loan companies conducted their business in an honest and competent fashion, but only that

if they did not their fellow premium payers and the government-that is to say, the people of Canada-would replace any losses suffered by their depositors. It would be an invitation to crooks and incompetents to play fast and loose with the funds entrusted to them, in the knowledge that if things went awry somebody else would pick up the bill.
The editorial goes on to refer to what was said by the minister's predecessor in his book "A choice for Canada"-
-that the institutions in question subject themselves to federal inspection and meet all the requirements of the federal regulatory authorities.
The editorial then points out that in the United States deposit insurance works, not because it covers losses but because constant inspection has prevented losses. It goes on to say:
On five recent occasions U.S. federal inspectors have been able to move so early and so swiftly to control dangerous situations that no loss has been suffered.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? I also read that editorial this morning. Does he not agree that it would have been improper for me to have indicated the nature of the inspection outside the house before I did so in the house?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Yes, I dare say, but I do not believe the minister has yet indicated in this house, certainly not in any detail, the measures of inspection proposed. I heard him say that those who came under the fund would be subject to inspection but I did not hear him say that they would be subject to federal regulation, and I do not know the extent of the inspection. I hope he will answer that question later in this debate with a good deal more clarity than he has to date.
I now wish to come to the main point, which is that the government has constitutional authority and, I suggest, constitutional responsibility to deal with the protection of investors in companies that are carrying on banking operations. Is there any doubt in the world that provincial trust and loan corporations are in fact carrying on banking operations? I think it is perfectly obvious that in fact any company which receives deposits, and undertakes the obligation of paying those deposits to a depositor is in fact carrying on a banking operation. If those people who are undertaking this banking operation can do so on a voluntary basis so that they may come in if they choose, or if the province in which they have to be incorporated permits them to come in, the very people who ought to be controlled will be exempted from the control
January 11, 1967

and the deposit insurance which is essential for the protection of depositors.
This principle was clearly and well enunciated in the report of the Royal Commission on Banking and Finance of 1964, known as the Porter Commission. This commission set out its proposal which was that the so-called near-banks-I do not like this expression -those who were undertaking banking operations, should fall within federal regulations. I think this was the basis of the commission's recommendation and report. At page 363 the commission said the following:
However, our view is that it should be less arbitrary than the present legislation, which applies only to 10 named institutions, and should encompass all financial institutions issuing demand liabilities, transferable and short-term deposits, and other short-term banking claims (subject to limited exceptions to be specified later). It would thus include the present chartered and savings banks, many trust and loan companies, some other deposittaking institutions and such sales finance companies as issue banking claims not exempted by the legislation.
Farther down the page it goes on to say:
An alternative approach would be to make federal regulation voluntary while offering inducements to institutions to submit themselves. Unfortunately, however, those few institutions which are now virtually unregulated are precisely the ones which are likely to remain outside the regulatory framework. In fact, the inducements of coming under good regulation and of using the name "bank"-
-this last clause does not apply to what we are discussing-
-are probably not strong enough to lead all banking institutions to accept federal charters or licences. Many such institutions are already free to undertake most phases of banking business, in addition to some business from which the banks are excluded. They do not feel the need of central bank borrowing privileges because the chartered banks have served them effectively as lenders of last resort: they are unlikely to be attracted by the offer of a federal deposit insurance scheme because most of them believe they do not need it, while those for whom it might in fact be desirable are quite likely to have their own reasons for refusing it and the regulation it would entail; improved or cheaper clearing arrangements for their deposit accounts might tempt some institutions, but most would no doubt continue to be able to come to terms with chartered banks for this service. Thus while there is some attraction in a voluntary approach it is not likely to improve the present unsatisfactory state of affairs.
This dealt with banking, but as the passage indicates, it applies directly to the legislation on deposit insurance. If you are making it voluntary, the people who do not use it may be the people whose deposits ought to be insured and who ought to be regulated. They may be the ones who will step away from it. I
Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. say to the minister he has the power to regulate all those who carry on these banking operations.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Now, the hon. member for Edmonton West has expressed his views on the constitutional issue, and I venture to do the same thing. Although the question of what is included in the word "banking" under head 15, section 91, of the British North America Act is a very large question which I could not attempt to answer, because the courts have not yet given any final answer to that question, I say there is little doubt that an institution that has deposits which can be insured under this legislation, these loan and trust corporations, whether incorporated in a province or by the federal authority, are quite clearly carrying on banking operations. I feel that the federal responsibility for dealing with them is clearly set out in the British North America Act. If the provinces claim jurisdiction and say they have the right to incorporate these companies, they have the right to give them certain functions, then I say the moment they carry on banking arrangements, honouring cheques and so on, they bring themselves within federal jurisdiction. The moment they do that, then I suggest that in the interest of depositors, in the interests of the protection of our financial institutions, this parliament should not shelter behind constitutional arguments.
Supposing the minister is advised by less forthright and more timid lawyers that the law is not clear, then I suggest it would be quite easy to draft this bill in two parts. One part would apply clearly to banks and financial institutions incorporated federally and the other would apply to those trust and loan companies provincially incorporated. If anybody had any doubt about the validity of the second part, then that part could be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, which exists for this very purpose, for an opinion as to its constitutional validity. The court would have the obligation of saying whether or not this legislation was intra vires. I would have very little doubt that the legislation would be ruled to be intra vires. If I turned out to be wrong, then the only recourse would be to go to the provinces and say: We want you to join with us in making regulations and insurance of these deposit institutions obligatory. Let us not take refuge in half-hearted legislation in that it is compulsory for some and voluntary for others. In my submission, this is no way to deal with something that is supposed to be for the protection and benefit of the ordinary investors of this country.
January 11, 1367

Canada Deposit Insurance Corp.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I urge the minister to reconsider whether or not it is possible to boldly proceed to make the terms of this measure compulsory with regard to all institutions which are banking institutions, in the sense that they accept deposits and undertake to honour those deposits. I know there is a need for speed in this matter and one does not want constitutional trouble to overtake the legislation, but if the minister receives advice different from the advice given by the hon. member for Edmonton West and myself, then I suggest that the legislation be so drafted that any part, the constitutionality of which is in doubt, could be promptly referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for an opinion.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, we would be doing less than our duty to those whom we are bound constitutionally to protect, if we were to shelter behind some-I was going to say phony but perhaps that is the wrong word in this context-false or imagined constitutional limitation. If this sort of change is made, I think it should meet the situation and I have no doubt that the legislation will receive the support of all the members of my party.


Mr. Langlois (Meganiic):: Following the remarks of the two previous speakers, Mr. Chairman, I wish to add a few remarks of my own and perhaps a few criticisms which I hope the minister will consider. At the outset,
I should like to tell the minister that so far as the principle of deposit insurance is concerned, I believe it is rather difficult to speak against it. However, we have talked about this scheme and we do not know what the reactions are of the people directly involved in the financial field. I believe the minister has indicated his willingness to refer the bill to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. If this is the situation, then a lot of the problems or questions in the minds of members might be clarified at that time. I think it would be a wise move. Since we are discussing finance, whether it be insurance on deposits or whether it be banking, I think the matter should be discussed thoroughly by members at their leisure and to the satisfaction of those who are to be regulated. Those engaged in the financial field could give their views and make their criticisms of the proposed measure.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
At the outset, I may say that I believe our group is in favour of the principle of this measure. I may remind the minister, however, that we have already adopted the principle of
[Mr. Brewln.l

deposit insurance so far as the chartered banks are concerned. This insurance is the federal government itself. The federal government should have entire control in the financial field. If the federal government has given away this control, it would be quite interesting to know who has it and when it was given away. In so far as deposits are concerned, we must remember that the chartered banks have 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the deposits in their financial institutions. They are controlled by reserves in the Bank of Canada, and the Bank of Canada belongs to the Canadian people; it is under the jurisdiction of the federal government. If the federal government does not follow through with its control through the Bank of Canada, then it is not doing its job for Canadian depositors. If there is any failure on the part of the Minister of Finance or the federal government in office, then the financial institutions across the country will collapse because they rely on the over-all economy. I do not give a hoot what kind of insurance we are talking about; if this scheme is to be effective we will have to follow it through.
I do not want to shoot any arrows at anybody, but we have had some collapses in the financial field which, if we look far enough, may be due to some lack of responsibility on the part of the government, especially in the recent case of Prudential Finance. Perhaps the government did not move fast enough there, we do not know. But I still maintain that the Bank of Canada is the controller of the deposits in all the chartered banks, which amount to about 80 per cent of the total deposits in Canada. That is the backbone of our financial institutions.
Doubts have been expressed about federal jurisdiction over the so-called near-banks. I for one firmly believe that any body or corporation, such as credit unions, trust companies or whatever you like to call them, which conducts financial transactions should be controlled and guided by the financial policies of the federal government.
There also seems to be some controversy as to what the British North America Act stipulates in this regard. I think one of the first steps the minister should take is to get a ruling on this from the Supreme Court of Canada. This wold prevent any hiding behind smokescreens, one person saying it is the responsibility of the provincial government and another saying no, it is the responsibility of the federal government. While we are arguing about who has responsibility somebody else is being cleaned out of his savings and
January 11, 1967

deposits. This happened not too long ago and bankruptcies are taking place all the time.
If the provinces were given jurisdiction under the B.N.A. Act over some aspects of finance, then I believe it would be the responsibility of the federal government to make sure that that jurisdiction was maintained. Otherwise we would run into trouble in many respects. But as I say, I for one believe that any body which conducts financial transactions on the scale of the big corporations across the country should be regulated and inspected under federal law.
The hon. member for Edmonton West and the other hon. member who preceded me indicated that some of these corporations will be free to enter into this scheme and will be made subject to federal regulations and sanctions, if there are any, or to any other restrictions that might be deemed necessary. I firmly believe that regulations should be imposed across the board. All bodies in the financial field should be made to follow the same laws and be made subject to the same inspections. If a man has an automobile he must comply with the licensing laws and have a plate at the back of his car. There must be some sort of regulation in matters of this kind.
Financial institutions which do not want to come under federal jurisdiction and regulations may have very specific reasons. We do not know what they may be. They may be good and they may not; we are not in a position to know. Had there been some control in the case of the last bankruptcy which occurred, perhaps it could have been prevented and the shareholders or depositors would not have lost everything they invested.
The implementation of this scheme may involve some extra cost to the banks, depending on how it is operated and how this insurance is applied. As far as I am concerned, every service one receives should be paid for. I believe the scheme should include both large and small corporations. I firmly believe, as does the hon. member for Edmonton West, that the man with $100 to invest should be treated in the same way as a man with $10,000. The Canadian public in the long run will probably pay anyway.
If after examination the scheme is found to be unfeasible, the government can always discard it. If amendments require to be brought in after the minister presents the bill, this can be done. The minister did not give us too much elaboration today, although he did give some guide lines, if I may call them that. But
Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. we do not know the over-all effects of this scheme.
I submit that the government or the minister will have to decide at some time or other who is who in the financial field, what comes under the federal government and what should be left to the provinces. The hon. member for Edmonton West indicated that two of the biggest trust companies in Canada today, the Montreal Trust and the Royal Trust, are both provincially incorporated. I did not verify this myself, but I think that is so. But any federally chartered company is made subject to federal regulations before it is permitted to operate. They are told what they can and cannot do.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
As I say, Mr. Chairman, we must be given some clear-cut statement from the court as to responsibility in this matter. I think this would prevent a lot of speculating and upsetting of the apple cart now and then in financial circles. I only hope in its over-all effects this scheme is not going to permit the bigger companies to become bigger and keep the smaller companies smaller, instead of protecting those who have a right to come within the scheme. After all, it is the shareholders or depositors we are worried about. If the government intends to take steps to protect depositors, it should protect all depositors. I am sure what is good for one corporation is good for another, otherwise there would be something strange about this depositors insurance measure.
The only way to get a clear picture in this matter, I think, would be to submit this bill after first reading to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs. The members of the committee might clear the air in certain respects and obtain opinions from those engaged in the financial field. I am sure the minister would attend such a committee, where he might be asked for and have to give more detailed explanations than he has given in the house, on the over-all effect of the bill. That way we might obtain a bill which would protect all the depositors of this country.
The first concern of governments is to safeguard their economies and financial institutions. If the financial institutions or financial policies of this country collapse, then everything collapses, because finance is the blood of our economy. It is up to us to ensure that we protect all sections of financial fields, depositors as well as others, to foster confidence, for the over-all benefit of the Canadian economy.
11682	COMMONS
Canada Deposit Insurance Corp.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, on the basis that this resolution introduces a bill to give insurance covering deposits in trust and loan companies, I believe it is good. What concerns me is this: The banks and larger trust companies, which are probably less in need than anybody of this insurance, will be the ones basically to participate in this measure. Many of the smaller companies, particularly provincial companies outside the legislation, will not be able to provide for their depositors-and in some cases will not want to-the coverage this legislation provides.
In principle the legislation is sound. In the United States, where similar legislation has been in effect for many years, it has worked soundly and has protected depositors of smaller banks and near-bank institutions.
The satisfactory functioning of the banking system to a great degree depends on public confidence. That this legislation will further strengthen public confidence is good. Let not this house and let not the government forget its responsibility to the public in providing proper controls on the one hand and adequate policies on the other, with respect to the deposits presently held in banking institutions and savings accounts in Canada.
It might be well to look at the most recent statistical summary of the Bank of Canada, issued for December, 1966. On page 120 of this statistical summary we are told that the personal savings of Canadians, in savings accounts in Canada at the present time, total $10,187 million, the highest rate of savings per capita of any nation in the world.
On the basis that these deposits are deposit liabilities on the part of institutions holding the deposits, and according to the evidence of the various governors of the Bank of Canada-and I think basically of what Mr. Graham Towers said a few years ago, that this bank cannot lend its depositors' money-I find it very interesting on turning to page 814 of this document to find that the total assets, including notes in circulation at the present time, of the Bank of Canada total $3,974.5 million. This means that should the depositors of those institutions accepting deposits from the public together at any one time go to the institutions and demand their deposits, those institutions would find it impossible to give them their money.
While we talk of insurance to protect the depositor, particularly the small depositor, and while we recognize that this type of insurance principle is sound, let us understand clearly how our financial system works. It is

DEBATES	January 11, 1967
impossible to provide the total insurance necessary to protect all depositors in Canada, should any emergency arise when all demand their deposits back.
In this regard it is imperative that the federal government formulate financial policies which will retain the confidence of the Canadian people in their financial institutions, to make sure that the financial system, particularly that centred around the Bank of Canada, functions adequately, and to give Canada the kind of monetary policy which will enable the monetary system to do what it was intended to do in the first place, distribute the goods and services the economy is able to produce.
I do not follow all questions raised by previous speakers who dealt with the constitutional validity of the proposed legislation. Some alleged that this legislation is non constitutional as it relates to financial institutions with federal charters. I cannot accept that. It seems to me that any company having a federal charter comes under the direct responsibility of the federal government. We realize what may happen to provincial institutions-and some of them are very large institutions already-which are provincially incorporated.
I suggest that not only must this legislation be referred to the standing committee, but it must also be referred to the provincial governments, and to those companies in the financial field, so that there may be full consultation and advice. I can see one thing happening, Mr. Chairman. Many of the provincial companies which are sound and reliable, with good reputations, wanting to assure the public of their stable operations, will as the result of this legislation, should it come into effect, seek federal incorporation. This will be good.
During the past week, and certainly since the deposit insurance legislation has been rumoured, several respectable and reliable provincial trust companies have said that they will seek federal incorporation to come under this legislation. I trust the minister is prepared to encourage and facilitate that type of action. This is the kind of reaction I hope would come from this legislation.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The legislation does not necessarily give adequate protection to companies who feel they do not need, or do not want, the protection which it will provide; and unless the government is able to extend protection to all types of institutions it seems to me that the entire picture as it is related to near-banks, in
January 11, 1967	COMMONS
particular, will become confused. It is imperative that the fullest possible consultation should take place with the provincial governments, who at this time are responsible for the incorporation of many of the institutions operating within the provinces in the field of deposit-acceptance, and that there must also be consultation with the institutions themselves.
At this stage, as far as the resolution is concerned, I feel we can give our support to the legislation while reserving the right to comment in detail on those aspects which I, and others, have raised. We shall await the bill with anticipation. But as we formulate laws designed to control financial institutions, and as the government formulates policy designed not only to direct those institutions but to direct the whole economy, it is imperative that we should understand the basis upon which the banking system operates and appreciate our responsibility for ensuring that the laws we pass and the policy we lay down are such as to enable the system to operate for the good of the Canadian people.
Production has no other purpose than distribution, and it is the responsibility of our federal banking system to facilitate this process of distribution while at the same time affording the necessary opportunity for saving, and making provision for the security of those who make funds available to be held in trust.


James Ross Fulton: I realize it is probably the desire to pass this resolution tonight, and therefore I shall speak only briefly.
In addition to supporting most strongly what has been said by my hon. friend from Edmonton West, the hon. member for Greenwood and others, I wish to raise one other matter for the consideration of the minister. To deal briefly with what hon. members preceding me have said, I wish to add my objection to the idea that in this legislation not only is there a question as to whether it is right to suggest that the federal government does not have jurisdiction, but I think it is extremely wrong in principle, if we are to proceed in this way and make this scheme voluntary as though we were not certain we had jurisdiction, to say that adherence to it on the part of the trust and loan companies can only become effective if the provinces consent-that is to say, in the case of corporations or financial institutions which are incorporated provincially.
Canada Deposit Insurance Corp.
Surely this is a very wrong thing to do in principle, because not only does it raise the question of whether we have the right to legislate directly and, as it were, compulsorily in this field but it seems to me to go further and say we have not the right even to enter into the field unless the provinces consent. This is entirely unacceptable. I suggest to the minister that he should consider seriously amending this legislation. If he does not think he can go further than a voluntary scheme, leave it voluntary, but remove the provision which would require provincial consent in the case of provincially incorporated companies.
The other point with which I should like to deal particularly concerns the interesting statement which the minister made that the Deposit Insurance Corporation will also act as a lender of last resort. I think this is a valuable part of the scheme and I urge the minister strongly to carry the idea one step further. By way of background to my suggestion I should like to say that this whole discussion arises out of the recognition that there is insufficient control and inspection of large numbers of institutions operating in the financial field and this bill, whether it is an adequate device or not, is, nevertheless, a device for attracting, as it were, under the umbrella of federal control and inspection financial institutions in the deposit-taking field which are not under that control and inspection at the moment.
The minister has reservations about his power to compel them to come in, so he is trying to attract them in. Leaving aside my criticism that he is challenging the authority of the federal government by saying they can only come in if the province consents, the idea is a sound one and I am sure it has support in all parts of the house. We recognize that control is desirable and, indeed, essential in the financial field, and certainly the events of the past twelve months or so have demonstrated beyond doubt the need for a greater degree of inspection and control over these institutions. Nevertheless the deposit insurance scheme will not in fact cover one very important segment of these institutions, that is, the finance and loan companies which are not in the business of taking deposits. These unfortunately, are the type of company with respect to which the failures have occurred in the last 12 months, failures which have caused such great concern, not just because of the amount of the losses or of the defalcations involved in two particular instances-although, of course, concern is felt in respect of the loss by the noteholders-but also a very real concern as to how many more of these failures
11684	COMMONS
Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. the financial system of Canada can stand without a real crisis being engendered. I venture to suggest that if one were to ask the majority of those in financial circles that question, they would answer: we cannot stand any more.
It is with this background that I come to my suggestion that we should extend this principle of a lender of last resort into the field of finance companies, thus holding out another device, another carrot as it were, to attract a further segment of the financial field beneath the unbrella of federal regulation and control.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
As a result of discussions with representatives of this type of company, I understand that even well established and reputable companies, with conservative type business administration, can find themselves in serious difficulties in times of tight money because they rely to a great extent upon lines of credit established with the chartered banks. They of course must have a balance of long and shortterm obligations on their own part. In other words on their credit side their obligations are of medium or longer term nature, but they themselves raise their funds by issuing shortterm paper. Even those that are conservatively administered have this problem of business management not to let the two get too far out of balance. They rely to a great extent, in the event of an emergency, on being able to go to a bank and call on the line of credit they have established, and they always carry on their financial operations within that limit.
However, I am informed that in times of tight money they have had the experience of going to their banks, hoping to draw on their line of credit, only to be told, "I am sorry. Haven't you heard? Money is tight and the full line is not available." In such a case they naturally find themselves in serious difficulties. Therefore I think it would be a prudent assistance to extend to these institutions some such device as a lender of last resort, so that if they found themselves in this kind of difficulty they would have an organization to which they could turn, although at some expense. It is not something they would do every day without regard to the consequences, but it would tide them over the period of difficulty.
I suggest that this lender of last resort should be a federal government agency, and as a condition of having access to this lender of last resort once again a regulatory and

DEBATES	January 11, 1967
control scheme could be set up. On the basis of conversations I have had with reputable organizations in this finance and lending business, I am satisfied that they would be quite prepared to accept, as a price of having access to a lender of last resort, the obligation to submit to federal control and regulation.
I also suggest that if this were done we would have made a very important start on, if you like, resolidifying under federal control and jurisdiction the important segments of those institutions which are in the business of money and banking, taking deposits and lending on credit, all of which I submit are interrelated parts of the money and credit system, control of which by the federal government is an indispensable prerequisite to a sound finance system in Canada.
By the review now being undertaken of the Bank Act and the important amendments being made, and by this device of deposit insurance which we are now considering, one aspect of which is a lender of last resort available to deposit taking institutions, and by extending the principle of lender of last resort to loan and finance companies, we would take an important and essential step in this field, a step which is essential because of the disturbing developments that have taken place within the past 12 months.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I wish to support the request made by the hon. member for Edmonton West that the bill be referred to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs. If that committee is to do a thorough job it must have the opportunity to study this bill, not only its implications with respect to the Bank Act but with respect to the whole field of the federal control of money and credit. The relationship between the two is intricate and inescapable, and the committee should have the opportunity to study the bill and get the opinion of representatives of the bankers association, and of others in the finance field.
Such a step would not in the slightest delay our consideration of the Bank Act amendments. Indeed, without the committee having access to this bill, studying it and hearing evidence upon it, I suggest our consideration of the Bank Act itself would be delayed because we would be operating in a vacuum. We have to ask about this thing anyway. The bill is now ready and I am satisfied that sending it to the committee would accelerate our consideration in that committee, and certainly make it more meaningful.
January 11, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	11685
In the standing committee we would also have an opportunity for further consideration of the proposal I have made with regard to a lender of last resort available to finance and loan companies. Only by sending the bill to that committee could we enable the committee to do the job which parliament is so interested in seeing done, namely to restore firmly to the unbrella of federal control and inspection all aspects of monetary and fiscal policies.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few remarks on the resolution before us this afternoon.
That resolution includes three proposals. First:
-to establish the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation with an authorized capital of ten million dollars to be subscribed for by the Minister of Finance and paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund at such time as the corporation may require-
Second:
-to authorize the minister to make loans to the said corporation the aggregate outstanding amounts of which shall not at any time exceed five hundred million dollars-
Third:
-and to provide further for the employment of staff and for other matters consequential upon or incidental to any of the foregoing.
In his statement, the hon. minister was not too generous with his explanations or with his projections. On the whole, he said it was a bill to ensure the security of the small depositors' savings, to increase the powers of the lending institutions and to bring the member institutions under inspection.
It should be remembered, Mr. Chairman, that the subject matter of this resolution does not involve only financial consequences; also involved are economic and social implications. Some financial institutions located in certain provinces, such as the trust companies, for instance, accumulate sums of money, reserves and deposits and such sums are used in the economic and social development of the province, in accordance with its particular and regional character.
That is why, to date, having heard some hon. members discuss the question the hon. minister realizes that his bill is the cause of grave concern and raises tremendous questions.
I believe that the field of deposit insurance is a provincial field, according to the letter and the spirit of the Canadian constitution and the introduction of such a bill, to my mind, is another instance of interference by
23033-739|
Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. the central government in the field of insurance and trust companies. It is another way of repeating what has been going on in the field of insurance since 1930.
I was listening a few moments ago to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) who said that provincial companies may, if they wish, come under this federal legislation and that is precisely the point: they would have to submit to an unacceptable inspection, as the Minister of Finance mentioned, by the way, in his very brief statement.
The hon. member for Red Deer also pointed out that the provincially chartered companies could, of course, extend their powers and their field of operation by applying for federal charters.
Well, that is exactly what happened in the insurance field, and the creation of deposit insurance by the federal government under the present circumstances-as pointed out by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) without consulting explicitly and directly the provincial governments about it-represents in the insurance and deposit insurance field an attraction which is harmful to the provincial governments and the trust companies which operate under a provincial charter.
From time to time, the matter of uniformity will be brought up. That argument is used here rightly and wrongly, so that it no longer means anything, or if it means all that everyone wants it to mean, Canadian federalism and the Canadian constitution no longer mean anything nor the sharing of responsibilities and powers. If, under the pretext of uniformity, the central government must interfere in all fields, set up standards and compulsory audits in a financial field such as this one, prejudices will result.
A wonderful degree of co-ordination can be achieved without bringing up, throughout Canada, that argument of uniformity. It happened in other fields and I will give you only one example: the pension plan that the federal government set up under national legislation and that the province of Quebec, in turn, adopted but by drafting its own legislation in such a way as to ensure some co-ordination and uniformity in the federative sense and not in the unilateral sense, something which this parliament has been trying so hard to apply in the last few years.
[DOT] (5:50 pun.)
Mr. Chairman, hon. members and parliament are aware that the province of Quebec is now considering the advisability of
11686	COMMONS
Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. introducing legislation to set up a deposit insurance scheme. A committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Jacques Pariseau, the talented economist, has been studying financial institutions since December, 1965.
The provincial inquiry deals with legislation governing trust companies, savings and credit unions, mortgage, personal and industrial loan companies, and other similar institutions.
I am referring here to financial institutions or near-banks which are to be found in all provinces. Certain organizations in Canada are deeply worried about bills like the one introduced this afternoon by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp).
I wish to point out briefly that the National Trust Corporation objects to the establishment by the federal government of a deposit insurance scheme because the corporation believes this is an exclusively provincial field of jurisdiction.
The Canadian Trust Companies Association, of which Mr. Marcel Faribault is president, says that this type of precedure in the field of deposit insurance constitutes, for the federal government, a perpetuation, a repetition and a continuation of what has been going on in the insurance field since 1930.
The president of the Provincial Bank of Canada, Mr. Ubald Boyer, claims that a financial enterprise under provincial charter would not accept, or would be reluctant to accept, a federal inspection.
I conclude, Mr. Chairman, by asking the Minister of Finance this: In order to avoid further tensions, further difficulties between the central government and the provinces of Canada, will he delay the preparation and introduction of his proposed bill until such time as a working committee in the province of Quebec, and possibly in other provinces, has studied the matter, informally and officially. Let him wait for the results of that report which is to be published within the next few months. I would also ask him to consult the provincial ministers of finance and meet them in a true spirit of federalism, and not to always proceed unilaterally and then confront them with a fait accompli. I ask him to bring into being a truly co-operative federalism between the various levels of government which exercise the authority in our country.
Obviously, the co-operation of the provinces is essential and advantageous to all depositors, to all Canadians, to all provincial and federal governments.

DEBATES	January 11, 1367
Some hon. members spoke a while ago of submitting the matter to the Supreme Court, but it is not really the appropriate court to rule on the allocation of authority and responsibilities in Canada.
Before 1949, the privy council in London had that authority under our constitution, but since then, our federative political system has been deprived of an adequate and acceptable constitutional court to which the constituent parts of this country, of this political system -both the provincial and the central governments-could appoint members and expect fair and balanced judgments. We are still in a vicious circle.
The present government is postponing constitutional reforms. It is delaying the establishment of basic organizations which could precisely settle the disputes and problems and urge on Canada toward real progress. In my opinion, the government should lose no time in preparing the way for discussions, in this house and with provincial representatives, about the establishment of a constitutional court where such a problem could precisely be settled in all fairness and equity.


The Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister could give us some answer as to whether or not the government has decided that this bill, or the subject matter of it, will be referred to the committee. If the answer is in the affirmative, that the subject matter will be referred to the committee or that it should have to await second reading, then we of the opposition are quite prepared to adopt the resolution at this time so that we can see the bill.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I should like to do whatever will do most to promote consideration of the legislation, which I consider very important. I should have preferred to let this bill be published and examined by the public at large before any debate or any consideration anywhere, either in committee or in the house. Therefore I would like to have the bill published.
I can say at least that when the bill is given second reading it will be referred to the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs. I should like to reserve the question of whether or not the subject matter should be referred. I say this, not because I want to deny the committee any opportunity to discuss the
January 11, 1967

subject but because I believe it would be valuable to give everyone concerned some time to look at the bill before it is considered either in committee or in the house.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In that regard I think we can assure the minister, because of the people who are to appear before the committee at least within the next week or 10 days, that this likely would not be discussed there. We would wait. The only possibility in this regard would be in respect of the representatives from C.U.N.A. They, however, do not appear to be covered by this legislation, so I would think that discussion with them would be academic. I would urge the minister to get his to the committee as soon as possible, because that will help expedite consideration of the Bank Act.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I hope hon. members opposite do realize I am trying to facilitate consideration of this legislation. Some very important principles are involved here. It had been my original intention to proceed no further than first reading. I now believe however that it would be valuable to go further if we can. Therefore I should much prefer to reserve now the question of whether we will refer the subject matter of the bill to the committee. I think it may be better, if we can, to approve the bill in principle and refer it to the committee. I can assure the committee that the government would be prepared to consider amendments; this may not be the final form of the legislation. This is one of the reasons why I have some uncertainty as to what is the best way of proceeding. I hope the committee will give the public the opportunity of seeing the bill. I can assure the opposition that I will very seriously consider both requests. If we do approve the bill in principle, it will be referred to the finance committee; that undertaking I can give. Also I will consider whether the subject matter might be referred to the committee in due course.
Business of the House


Mr. Lamberi:: Mr. Chairman, as a question to the government house leader, could he indicate if it is the government's intention to proceed to second reading, when the matter would be brought on for debate? I would not want this question to be deferred indefinitely, as we say in French, aux calendes grecques, and left hanging, because we have an objective as well as the government. I think we share the initial objective in this respect. If the bill is going to come to second reading I should like to hear from the government house leader that we would consider this matter within a week. I have some commitments after next week, and I want to be here for this bill.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I do not feel justified in giving a commitment in that absolute form, bearing in mind that I have made such horrible errors on occasion in the past as to the length of time a particular measure before the house might take. However, I will give the undertaking that we will bring it forward very quickly and that I will consult with hon. members opposite as to what day we can bring it forward.


Norman Platt Lambert: That is fine.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Sharp thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-261, to establish the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will be returning to consideration of the transport bill in committee of the whole house.


[Stage Direction]
It being six minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, January 12, 1967