Mr. BOURASSA:

Why does the Government establish a difference, in the granting of a position, between the veterans who went over to Europe and those who were sent to Bermuda, by military authority, during the great war?

Hon. Mr. CALDER:

The Government is bound by the statute under which only members of the C.E.F. who have had active service overseas are entitled to the benefits of Section 39 of the Civil Service Act.

32G0

1. What % portion of the Income Tax received during the' fiscal year ending March 31, 1919, was received in respect of taxes upon income for the calendar year 1917, or for the year of any corporation ending within said calendar year?

2. What amount was received in respect of taxes upon income for the calendar year 1918, or for the fiscal year of any corporation ending within that calendar year?

3. What was the total Income Tax revenue for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1920?

4. Of this sum, what amount was collected in respect of taxes upon income for the calendar year 1917, or for the fiscal year of any corporation ending within said calendar year (1917)?

5. What amount was collected in respect of taxes upon income for the calendar year 1918, or for the fiscal year of any corporation ending within that calendar year 0 918)?

6. What amount was collected in respect of taxes upon income for the calendar year 1919 or for the fiscal year of any corporation ending within that calendar year (1919)?

1. $9,350,209.72.

2. None. The date for mailing assessments covering income realized during 1918 was October 31, 1919, which date was several months after the close of the 1919 fiscal year.

3. $20,264,242.43.

4. $4,717,303.84 under Income War Tax Act, 1917.

5. $14,988,510.91 under Income War Tax Act, 1917.

6. Returns under Income War Tax Act, 1917, covering income realized during calendar year 1919 were due to be filed on May 31, 1920, or two months after the close of the 1920 fiscal year. At the request of a number of taxpayers who were anxious to obtain receipted assessments previous to March 15, 1920, assessments covering calendar year 1919, which amounted to $558,427.68 were levied and paid.

Mr. MacNUTT:

1 By whom were the Census Commissioners appointed?

2. By whom are the Census Enumerators being appointed?

1. The Minister of Trade and Commerce.

2. The Census Commissioners, subject to the approval of the Dominion Statistician.

Mr. W. D. STAPLES

1. Is W. D Staples a member of the Board of Grain Commissioners of Canada?

2. Has the same W. D. Staples been recently appointed one of the Commission of Inquiry to investigate the handling of the Grain Trade of Canada?

3. If so, has the appointment been made in accordance with Sec. 6 of the Canada Grain Act?

Right Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER.

The answer to the first question is, yes.

The answer to the second question is, yes.

The answer to the third question is that it is not thought that such an appointment contravenes the section mentioned.

Mr. SPEAKER:

In the course of debate during the sitting of May 10, the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) read a letter which he said was purely imaginary. The letter in question was addressed to Hon. F. B. McCurdy, Minister of Public Works, and signed by C. C. Ballantyne. A point or order was raised by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Hay) as to whether it was competent to attach a member's name to an imaginary letter.

The situation was somewhat baffling and difficult to deal with at the moment, inasmuch as the question was without precedent so far as I have been able to ascertain, and, in view of the specific statement of the hon. member for Brome that the letter was purely imaginary, I did not at the time rule the proceeding out of order. Upon careful and mature reflection I am of opinion that if this incident is to stand, and a precedent thils established, a door would be opened for a grave abuse of the rules of the House and the general principles-which govern debate.

There are several objections to this method of procedure. It is contrary to the rules to refer to an. hon. member by name -and, in this connection, I desire to direct the attention of the House to the fact that there has been of late an increasing tendency to violate this most important rule.

Furthermore, the matter contained in a letter of this character, although said to be purely imaginary, cannot fail to convey a meaning and be capable of an interpretation which the hon. member affected cannot effectively deny, being precluded by the very nature of the letter; thus in effect an hon. member would be enabled by this indirect method to convey a meaning or impression which he would be precluded from doing by direct assertion.

There is still another very grave objection to this method, an objection which, to my mind, is sufficient in itself, namely, that the use of this method in argument will call for similar letters in reprisal, and

thus the door would be' opened to a method of debate which it would require no effort of the imagination to realize would affect most injuriously decorum in debate and the dignity of the House.

It is therefore in my judgment of great importance that the incident in question should not be construed as a precedent, and in order the more effectively to carry out this intention, I have issued instructions that the letter in question be not printed in the revised edition of Hansard. In justice to the hon. member for Brome, I desire to make it clear that he was most explicit in his statement that the letter was not only purely imaginary, but that it was not to be construed as having any personal reference to any member of the House. In this connection I quote the hon. member's words:

They are absolutely imaginary; there is no intention in my mind to assert for a moment that it is possible for the man, who i-s supposed to have written this imaginary letter to have really written it-I want that distinctly understood.

Indeed, I am happy to add that I have no doubt the hon. member for Brome had no ulterior motive in using the letter in question. This, however, in my judgment, only serves to strengthen the objection as to the danger inherent in such a course to which I have given expression.

Hon. Mr. MURPHY:

May I inquire, Mr Speaker, whether the ruling you have given might not in the future be regarded as a precedent that would be qpen to discussion if on another occasion something somewhat similar were to arise, not with reference to, say, an imaginary letter, but with reference to some other subject which might be the occasion of a ruling?

Mr. SPEAKER:

I do not know that I

quite apprehend the purport of the hon. member's question; perhaps he would put it in other words. What particular point has he in mind? .

Hon. Mr. MURPHY:

Well, I had not any particular point in mind at the moment, except this, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that the ruling which your Honour gave is susceptible of such wide application that the occasion might arise when, without there being any such reason for the ruling as there may be in the present instance, another ruling might be given and matter deleted from Hansard without the opportunity of debate.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The objection that the

hon. member has in mind is so general in its terms that it hardly requires an

207 1 i ' -

additional ruling, if I may use the term, because the ruling which I have given would refer only to an incident similar in character to that with which it deals. Of course, it is open to the incumbent of the Chair from time to time to give his ruling as particular incidents may arise, subject always, of course, to its meeting with the approval of the House. If the hon. member has more particular reference to the circumstance of the Speaker ruling that a certain letter be deleted from the revised edition of Hansard, I may say that there are already precedents not only in the Canadian House of Commons but in the British House which give that authority to the Speaker.

PRIVILEGE-Mr. ROBB