Mr. THOMPSON:

How many pounds of canned beef were imported into Canada from all countries during each of the years 1936, 1937 and 1938?

Mr. EULER:

Calendar years: 1936, 12,056,904 pounds; 1937, 11,694,759 pounds; 1938, 10,302,404 pounds.

Income War Tax

1. Are any delegates being sent to the League of Nations? If so, who are they, and when did they depart?

2. Is Canada still a member of this organization ?

3. How many other visits have been made by any of the 1939 delegates for similar purposes?

4. What experiences have any of those selected in 1939 on foreign affairs or diplomacy?

5. Who chooses the employers and labour delegates, and do they pay their own expenses?

6 What is the estimated cost of the visit of 1939?

7. Will the government give consideration to Canada's resigning as a member?

8. What has been the total cost of the league since its inception?

9. Are all the delegates who have been selected accompanied by technical advisers, and what are the duties of these advisers, and what functions do they perform?

10. Will the government lay on the table the report of these delegates of this league since its inception, for the information of parliament?

Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley). On April 28 a report was laid on the table, with the approval of the internal economy commission, dealing with the employees of this house. Will the minister allow that report to be concurred in, or if not, what steps are to be taken in this regard? Action such as he foreshadowed yesterday in regard to other employees would be impossible in the case of these, some fifty in number, because they are under the sole control of this house; they cannot be controlled by order in council or by the civil service commission. But if the report that was laid on the table were concurred in-it could be done without commitment-it would at least leave the door open for any possible action which the government might wish to take.

Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of National Revenue):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's * request will be given consideration I am not very familiar with the circumstances, but I shall bring the question to the attention of those who are.

Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):

Mr. Speaker, the amendments made by the senate to this bill are, in my opinion, far beyond ordinary modifications, as they alter periods during which certain income taxes shall be levied. They are not in the nature of fees or penalties imposed to punish certain offences, which this house sometimes accepts under protest. There was in the bill, as passed by this house, a clause providing that all its sections, except 16 and 17, shall be applicable to the income of the year 1938. The senate's amendment provides that section 6 shall be applicable to the income of the year 1939. This amendment changes the financial scheme submitted by the government and affects the balance of ways and means needed for the service of the year.

The action taken by the senate is inconsistent, I believe, with the undeniable control exercised by the elected representatives of the people over taxation and all financial measures.

The privilege of the House of Commons in this regard is based upon the fact that the house is composed of popularly elected members.

As Redlich, volume III, pages 119-120, says:

All taxes, duties and grants of money, and all measures imposing financial burdens on the people are matters within the sole jurisdiction of the House of Commons. Closely connected with the first of the Commons' rights in money matters is a second, inseparable from it and equally fundamental. They are entitled to order and dispose how the national revenue, whether permanent or annually granted, is to be spent, and to do so in the greatest detail.

Both income and expenditure are therefore completely and exclusively in the hands of the House of Commons.

The House of Commons, adhering to the British North America Act and the fundamental principles of responsible government; cannot renounce its inalienable right to initiate and regulate taxation, and it has never acknowledged the right of the senate to pass legislation imposing a charge upon the people.

Were the session not so near prorogation we should certainly refuse to accept this amendment; but a conference with the upper house for the discussion of this important question would last several days. It is hoped, however, that the senate will not persist in future in a course which we deem contrary to the principles of parliamentary practice and

Income War Tax

which may lead to constitutional conflicts. The motion to concur in the amendment, with this reservation, will be .made by the Minister of National Revenue.

Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of National Revenue):

Hon. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):

Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), and the apparently strong authority in support of the position which he takes that the amendment is entirely irregular and beyond the jurisdiction of the senate, I am surprised that there should be a motion accepting the amendment, even with the reservation which he has attached to it. Reservations of this kind are of no value in respect of this legislation. I am of the opinion once we depart from what is sound, well-established principle we are likely to get into difficulty and conflict in the future. I am not sure that a conference should occupy much time. It would depend upon the conference itself. H the matter is as clear as the Minister of Justice indicates, the conference should not take very much time. Would the Minister of Justice or the Minister of National Revenue explain in a little more detail the effect of these amendments upon the legislation?

Mr. ILSLEY:

This was the section relating to the interest on succession duties. The hon. member himself took a very strong position in the house against our amendment to the act, and I am sure that he would agree with the merits of the senate amendment. However, I realize that that is not the point at issue.

Mr. STEWART:

What is the amendment? Tell us the effect of it.

Mr. ILSLEY:

By the amendment which passed this house to the Income War Tax Act, only one year's interest on succession duties is allowed from any one year's income-that is, the interest accruing during that very year. By the act which passed this house the amendment related to the income of the year 1938 and subsequent years. By the senate amendment the retroactive feature is eliminated and the amendment relates only to the income of 1939 and succeeding years. There is, of course, something to be said for the amendment, on the merits. Oninions might differ.

I believe that in this house the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) expressed very strongly the opinion that our amendment to the Income War Tax Act was not just, was not right; and I expressed the contrary opinion, or at least the opinion that it was inline with our usual amendments to the Income War Tax Act: they relate to the income tax returns which are being made, during spring and early summer, for the previous year. However, I can understand that on the justice and the merits of the case there might be a strong contrary view, and the government have decided that they do not particularly object to the merit of the senate amendment. It is, however, an infringement of the privileges of this house to make such an amendment in the senate.

The hon. gentleman said that -we were departing entirely from precedent. On certain rare occasions the House of Commons has done just what we are doing at the moment. We have asserted our position, affirmed our privileges and declined expressly to waive any of them, and had an entry to that effect made in the journals of the house. Nevertheless have accepted the amendment, and I think that that is the reasonable course to take in the circumstances. If there is at any time the slightest disposition in the other chamber to continue with this, undoubtedly we shall have to make an issue of it.