Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):

moved:

That the petition of the Sealright Company, Inc., presented this day, praying for an act respecting a certain patent of the said company and the report of the Clerk of Petitions thereon, be referred to the select standing committee on Standing Orders pursuant to-the provisions of rule 88.

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

Explain.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

This bill

has been on the order paper for some time. There is nothing new in it except that it involves some amendments to the Criminal Code that will come later. This amendment is merely the amendment that has been submitted on two former occasions, except that on this occasion we are striking out section 41 and substituting a new section 41 which after all is nothing more or less than a provision to simplify our inspectional work and to deal particularly with the discrimination against British-born in the present act and deportation for political offences which may take place without conviction and only on a hearing before a board of inquiry. This will remove the two objections because in the bill we recognize the residence of the British-born and provide that deportation for

27SS

Questions

political offences shall take place only after conviction. That is all that is involved in the bill. The officials of the Department of Immigration are foregoing the right of deportation under the provisions of section 41 which was enacted during the war period.

Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):

Will the minister explain why he describes that as discrimination against the British-born?

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

Perhaps my words were not very well chosen. British-born have no more rights in Canada than any other individuals coming to Canada. There is however the short term of residence in which they have to qualify and during which we can deport them for offences under section 41.

Motion agreed .to and bill read the first time.

1. What gross amount was collected by ithe Dominion Income Taxation department in each of the following years: 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925?

2. What refunds have been made from each year's collection ?

3. What was the cost of collection for each year?

4. How many employees were there in the department in each year?

5. What amounts were collected by the office at London, Ontario, in each of the years mentioned?

6. How many employees were in the London office in each of the years mentioned?

7. Whait are the names of those who now act as assessors in the London office?

1.

Fiscal Years Income Tax Collected

1918- 1919 S 9,349,719.80

1919- 1920

20,281,081.681920- 1921

46,579,551.201921- 1922

79,960,245.081922- 1923

61,321,125.641923- 1924

55,579,032.021924- 1925

57,266,911.43

In addition the following taxes were collected under the Business Profits War Tax

Act:-

1918- 1919

1919- 1920

1920- 1921

1921- 1922

1922- 1923

1923- 1924

1924- 1925

32,970,061.81

44,145,184.48

40,841,401.25

22,815,666.58

13,031,461.80

4,752,680.89

2,704,427.37

2.

1918- 1919 .... 1919- 1920 .... 17,341.77

1920-1921 .... 197,726.89

1921-1922 .... 1,275,890.28

1922-1923 .... 1,609,587.27

1923-1924 .... 1,375,004.03

1924-1925 .... 1,018,868.61

1918-1919 .... 495,797.38

1919-1920 .... 1,145,088.03

1920-1921 .... 1,953,988.54

1921-1922 .... 2,277,349.78

1922-1923 .... 2,040,461.08

1923-1924 .... 1,935,242.19

1924-1925 .... 1,693,025.23

1918-1919 .. .. 407

1919-1920 .. .. 898

1920-1921 .. .. 1,330

1921-1922 .. .. 1,447

1922-1923 .. .. 1,354

1923-1924 .. .. 1,201

1924-1925 .. .. 1,057

1918-1919 .... 302,133.10

1919-1920 .... 622,792.71

1920-1921 .. .. 1,636,120.23

1921-1922 .. .. 5,274,378.78

1922-1923 .... 3,964,016.04

1923-1924 .... 4,767,913.61

1924-1925 .... 4,114,955.22

1918-1919 .. .. 19

1919-1920 .. .. 67

1920-1921 .. .. 90

1921-1922 .. .. 86

1922-1923 .. .. 77

1923-1924 .. .. 58

1924-1925 .. .. 50

7. H. I. Orr, J. M. Dickinson, W. G. Harding, J. C. Kennedy, J. H. C. Woodward, J. N. Wood, G. D. A. Blandford, R. S. Booth, W. H. Irvine, H. Morgan, F. J. Weldon.

1. What moneys have been paid to Lewis Duncan, barrister, at Toronto, by the present government in each of the years 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925 and 1926?

2. How much of said moneys was for services and how much for expenses?

Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:

Department of Justic

1.

1922- 23

1923- 24

1924- 25

1925- 26

1926- 27

Nil

$3,491 62 Nil 700 00 Nil

Questions

27SS

2. Services Expenses

1922- 23

Nil Nil1923- 24.. .. ,.. $3,130 00 $341621924- 25

Nil Nil19215-216

700 00 Nil1028-27

Nil NilDepartment of Labour-

1.

1922- 23 Nil

1923- 24 $ 4.533 60

1924- 25

21,924 2919215-26

11,751 12

2.

1922- 23

1923- 24

1924- 25

1925- 26

Living allowances Services and disbursements

$ 692 60

4,455 79 1,571 12

$31,488 50 $ 6,719 51

Department of Trade and Commerce-

1 and 2. 1922-$1,250-Salary as counsel for Board of Commerce for January, February and March, 1921. No expenses.

1924 1925. 1926

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

1. What is the name of the company or companies, person or persons, referred to by the Prime Minister on the orders of the day of April 16, 1926, as having made application for certain leases, licenses, or permits, effecting the Ottawa river in the neighbourhood of Carillon?

2. What, briefly, does the application ask for?

3. When was it filed, and what action has been taken with regard thereto?

Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:

Department of Railways and Canals.

Office of the Chief Engineer, Ottawa, April 21, 1926.

Memorandum:

Re Carillon Development

Under lease No. 24414, dated December 1, 1921, to the National Hydro Electric Co., Ltd., the company is given the right to construct a dam in the vicinity of the present Carillon dam on the Ottawa river which would raise the water level to elevation 120, and to develop the full flow of the river at this point, exclusive of the amount required for navigation. Since the granting of this lease, the company have submitted draft leases for the

consideration of the department which involve raising the level provided for above the proposed dam and the export of a portion of the power developed. The draft leases have not been approved and lease 24414 is still extant.

In December, 1924, the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company, in accordance with the provisions contained in their charter, granted in 1894 and at various times amended and extended, submitted for approval a plan showing the location of their proposed works in the section of the river extending from Grenville to Carillon. In December, 1925. the company submitted for approval an alternative location of their proposed works in this section. Neither scheme has been approved, and because the construction of a new canal with the works incidental thereto in this section will affect the existing Carillon and Grenville canal under this department's jurisdiction, the company's representatives have been verbally advised, that their plans will have to be submitted in more detail before consideration will be given to their proposals.

A. E. Dubuc,

Chief Engineer.

Department of Public Works.

1. The Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company.

2. The approval of plan of a canal and works from Hawkesbury to Pointe Fortune.

3. Filed on December 18, 1924, under the company's charter granted under act of parliament, 57-58 Victoria (1894) and amendments. Matter under consideration.