Mr. WHITE:

Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I have to propose is to subsection 3 of section 20. It was called to my attention the other day that there might possibly be an abuse of the provisions of this section, under which we provide that action for the recovery of penalties may be taken in the name of the Minister of Finance, Minister of Inland Revenue, or in respect of penalties under Part 3, in the name of the Minister of Inland Revenue, or any other person. It was suggested that this might lead to litigation of a vexatious character. I have been impressed with the view put forward, and, while there is abundant precedent running through not only our own statutes but the statutes of the United Kingdom regarding the imposition of taxes justifying the language used, still, on account of the somewhat far-reaching character of this legislation, it has appeared advisable to the Government that the objection should be met and a modification made accordingly. I therefore have to submit the following amendment .*

Subsection 3, section 20, line 35, after the words "Part Two" insert the words "and Part Three," and at line 36 of the same subsection, after the words "Inland Revenue," strike out all the remainder of the subsection.

The section will then read as follows:

3. All penalties imposed by this Act may be sued for, prosecuted and recovered with costs by His Majesty's Attorney General of Canada, or, in respect of penalties under Part One, in the name of the Minister of Finance, or, in respect of penalties under Part Two, and Part Three, in the name of the Minister of Inland Revenue.

That will ensure that private individuals will not institute any prosecutions of a vexatious character.

Although the debate is, I believe, confined to the particular amendment which I mentioned in moving the resolution, I may be allowed to advert to another matter to which I promised to give consideration pending the third reading of this Bill. It relates to the International Postage Convention. The committee will recall that a question arose as to whether it would be necessary for the public to put an additional war stamp on letters where the postage is already five cents, which is the maximum postage referred to in the convention. I find that the Post Office Department has communicated with the International Bureau at Berne, and in reply it has been advised that letters and postal cards for international service cannot be subjected to any tax or fee or postal charge other than that which is established by the provisions of paragraph 1 section 12-I do not desire to discuss again the question of whether this is a tax or a postal charge. It makes no difference whether it is the one or the other. It is not open to the Government, without violation of the convention in question, to impose an additional tax or an additional postal charge. That is in substance what I stated to the committee the other day.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

I certainly am of the opinion that the amendment which is now proposed ought to be favourably considered. This tax is a restriction, as all taxes are, upon the liberty of the subject. It is taking away from every one's revenue, and it may be abused. We know that all such taxes which bear a penalty are liable to be very seriously abused by a class of speculators who make it their duty to see that a man does not trespass beyond the law, and who take advantage of the opportunity if he does trespass. I approve the amendment, but I think my hon. friend would improve Tt IT Ee were to say:

All penalties imposed by this Act may be sued for, prosecuted and recovered with costs by His Majesty's Attorney General of Canada.

Why go beyond that? The amendment goes on to say:

Or in respect of penalty under Part 1, in the name of the Minister of Finance, or in respect of penalties under Part 2 and Part 3, in the name of the Minister of Inland Revenue.

The Attorney General, by reason of his office, is the one who should look after

infringements of the law.- It is not in the province of the Minister of Finance nor of the Minister of Inland Revenue to look after infringements of the law. That is the special duty conferred upon the Department of Justice. I cannot see any reason, and my hon. friend cannot give any good reason, why in one case the Attorney General should prosecute and in another, not the Attorney General, but a minister, should prosecute. My hon. friend is not able to give any good reason why there should be a departure from the principle to which I have referred, that is, that the Department of Justice is entrusted with looking after infringement of the law.

Mr. WHITE:

My right hon. friend has put forward the principle of uniformity. On account of my right hon. friend's long experience in legislation, I always treat any suggestions put forward By him with the greatest respect; but I will point out to him that in this amendment we are having regard absolutely to uniformity. My right hon. friend has overlooked the fact, or it has escaped his memory, that under the Inland Revenue Act, chapter 51, Revised Statutes, section 132, it is provided:

That every penalty Incurred for any offence against the provisions of this Act... if the amount or value of such penalty does not exceed $500, may be recovered or enforced by summary conviction under Part XV of the Criminal Code.

There is nothing in the Statute which says that information is to be laid by the Crown or under the authority of the Crown. Paley on Convictions, page 73, says:

Generally, any person may be an informer, but sometimes the statute governing the penalty allows only particular persons to inform.

The conclusion is, therefore, that any person may lay an information under the Inland Revenue Act for penalties recoverable by summary conviction.

Under the Inspection and Sale Act, chapter 85, Revised Statutes, section 45, it is provided that where the penalty or forfeiture exceeds $40, it may be sued for and recovered by any inspector, deputy inspector or any other person.

A somewhat different policy is provided by the Customs Act, section 266, which is as follows:

All penalties and forfeitures imposed by this Act or by any other Act relating to the customs or to trade or navigation shall, unless other provisions are made for the recovery thereof, be sued for, prosecuted and recovered

100J

with costs by His Majesty's Attorney General of Canada, or in the name of the Commissioner of Customs, or any officer or officers of customs, or other person or persons thereunto authorized by the Governor in Council, either expressly or by general regulation or orders, and by no other person.

In practice what I understand is done is this: If the informer desires to lay an

information, he gives it to the Inland Revenue officer or officers, and prosecutions are then instituted. Therefore, so far as my hon. friend's exception or objection is founded upon the principle of uniformity, he will observe that we are strictly in accord with Dominion Statutes which have been in force for a number of years. There appears, therefore, no doubt that there is ample precedent, including the Inland Revenue Act itself, for the form of legislation here adopted of allowing a private individual to institute proceedings for a penalty; but in this particular case, for the reasons I have given, and in order that we may "avoid the possibility of vexatious litigation-I do not think that would have occurred-we have thought it well to lodge the right of prosecution only in a minister of the Crown. With that amendment to the Act, and in view of the fact that we are preserving, as I have stated, uniformity of the statutes, it would appear to me that the amendment that I have suggested would be quite ample to meet the objection raised by my right hon. friend.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

My hon. friend is doing the very reverse of what he says he is doing. He says he is putting in this amendment for the purpose of uniformity, and he refers to the Inland Revenue Act. That Act says that proceedings can be instituted by any informer. In this case the minister prevents the informer from laying information. Therefore, he diversifies, and then having taken from the Inland Revenue Act the power of having proceedings instituted by an informer, he refers US' again to that Act. The point is not worth fighting about; but it seems to me that, if this Government is to become a party to a suit, the only one who ought to become that party is the Attorney General. Yesterday, when the Militia Estimates were under consideration, 1 claimed that certain proprietors had not been paid for their land, and I w!as told that the matter was in the hands of the Attorney General. And so it ought to he. This legislation would be simplified if such matters were left in the hands of the Attorney General.

Mr. WHITE:

When I spoke of uniformity, I quoted not only the Inland Revenue Act, but the Inspection and Sale Act, under which any penalty or forfeiture exceeding $40 may be sued for and recovered by any inspector, deputy inspector, or other person. I also referred to the Customs Act, under which the penalty may be recovered " by the Attorney General, or' in the name or names of the Commissioner of Customs, or any officers of the customs, or other person or persons thereunto authorized by the Governor in Council, either expressly or by general regulation or order, and by no other person." It was in reference to those statutes in particular that I spoke of uniformity. My right hon. friend, however, says the matter is not worth wasting any further time on.

Mr. PROULX:

Then, no prosecutions

could take place without the consent of the Attorney General?

Mr. WHITE:

Practically not without the

consent of the Attorney General.

The Minister of Inland Revenue could dispense with tb? opinion of the Attorney General.

Mr. W'HITE: He would not do it.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

But he may.

Bill, as amended, reported, read the third time, and passed.