1. How many employees of the Department

of Agriculture were on salary, pay or allowance in each province during 1927? _

2. What amount per province was paid to those mentioned in question one, as salaries and also as travelling expenses?

3. What number of officials of the Department of Agriculture were employed in each province during the year 1927 in each of the following classes, (a) sheep promoters; (b) wool graders; (c) egg promoters; (d) egg graders; (e) hay promoters; (f) hay graders?

4. What amount was paid in each province to each class mentioned above under the name of salaries and of travelling expenses?

Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River) moved:

For a return showing-1. All increases made to capital from profits in the form of stock dividends or in any other form whatsoever.

2. The profits Reported by all industrial organizations as to: (a) gross profits (per cent) on nominal capital, (b) gross profits (per cent) on actual cash invested in each case exclusive of bonus stock dividends, (c) net profits (per cent) as to nominal capital, (d) net profits (per cent) on actual cash invested in each case exclusive of bonus stock dividends.

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):

However much it may be desirable to secure this information in whole or in part, I think I can convince my hon. friend that he is asking for something which it is practically

Evidence in Japan in Litigation

impossible to obtain. I direct his attention to the first part of his motion, which asks for a return showing:

All increases made to capital from profits in the form of stock dividends or in any other form whatsoever.

Take a small business started many years ago; perhaps the owner of the business was unable to borrow money and all his savings from year to year went back into that particular business, which may have grown to a considerable size. Or take a fanner who started out on a homestead or who bought a farm at a low price; perhaps he got a little stock, and the herds and flocks increased from year to year and he put the money back into the farm. After a period of years that farm and stock may have become quite valuable.

Then take the next clause, with regard to industrial organizations; I imagine my hon. friend refers to incorporated companies. Some of these companies are incorporated under provincial charters, and it would be impossible for this government to secure the information with regard to the actual cash invested in such organizations. It may be said that the government could obtain part of this information from the Income Tax branch, but so far parliament has declared that income tax returns are confidential, and we are not allowed to give out that information.

In view of this explanation perhaps my hon. friend may see fit to withdraw his motion. I am not sure just what he wants to get at, but I suggest that he might very properly drop the resolution, and he and I could have a word together to see what he really does require. If the information is within the department we will be very willing to help my hon. friend, but as the resolution stands it is impossible to carry out.

Mr. KENNEDY:

Dropped.

Motion dropped.

Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :

Before the orders of the day are called I wish to ask-

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member is too late. The order of the day has been called.

Mr. McQUARRIE:

I was on my feet, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BENNETT:

Yes, the hon. member was on his feet.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Very well.

Mr. McQUARRIE:

May I ask if the attention of the Prime Minister has been directed to the press despatches from British Columbia, which indicate that the Japanese government have lately refused to allow a commission appointed by the Supreme Court of British Columbia to take evidence in Japan in a case which was pending in British Columbia involving something over $1,000,000. Much to the embarrassment of the parties, the Japanese government refused to allow evidence to be taken by the commission before the British Consul General at Tokyo. I have press despatches here which I shall be glad to hand to the Prime Minister.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

I have not been advised of the despatches to which my hon. friend refers, but judging from his remarks I would say they afford another reason why we should speedily have a minister at Tokyo.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The house has disposed of two amendments-first, the subamendment- and second, the amendment. The question now is on the main motion.

Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):

Mr. Speaker, the house having disposed of the subamendment presented by the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Fansher), on which I spoke, and of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Oahan), I propose now to address the house for a few moments on the main motion presented by the hon. Minister of Finance. In doing this I really perform what is perhaps a duty.

Mr. BENNETT:

I rise to a question of

privilege. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) has already spoken in this debate. The rule seems to be that when a motion is made, such as was made by the hon. Minister of Finance, and amendments are proposed, any member of this house who speaks to the main motion and the amendments after those amendments have been moved may not speak again. Otherwise the debate would never terminate. The members who may speak are those who had not spoken at the time the amendment

The Budget-Speaker's Ruling

was moved to the main motion. Otherwise, of course, the rule of the house against speaking twice to a question would be nugatory.