Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I know it is, in a lesser degree. But what I am pointing out is that primarily a succession duty or death duty tax should be based on the value of the property passing, on the principle of a tax on property, as distinct from a tax on persons.

Mr. ILSLEY:

Oh, no.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Well, the minister does not accept that proposal; and I assume, although I have not seen the bill as yet-

Mr. ILSLEY:

What the hon. gentleman

says is not clear.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

It is perfectly clear to me. I am sorry I have not been able to make it clear to the minister.

Mr. ILSLEY:

It is not clear to me. The tax imposed by this legislation depends (1) upon the value of the whole estate; (2) upon the value of the property passing to the person taxed, the beneficiary; (3) upon the degree of relationship, whether he is a stranger or otherwise.

Succession Duty Act

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

That is the incidence of the tax, about which I am not talking. What I am trying to suggest to the minister is that when this tax was first imposed in Canada it was primarily a tax on property. Those who are in the legal profession will recall that this is true; but because of the limited right of taxation vested in the province, which right was confined as the result of a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada and by something said by Chief Justice Anglin in one of his judgments- I have forgotten the name of the case- the amount of property they could tax was restricted. We had the attempt of the province of New Brunswick, at all events, to declare property to be property within the province which was not, in fact, property within the province. I tried to illustrate what I meant by referring to that attempt. Then the provinces shifted their ground, not in order to enlarge their jurisdiction, because that was confined by the constitution, but in order to get at property and values, and to produce results, beyond that which they were able to do on the theory that it was a tax on the property. Now, in most instances, they have attached the tax to the succession to property. I have often thought there was some question about their right to do that where the successor was out of the jurisdiction, but I am not going to argue that point now. The question I am bringing to the attention of the minister is this. The matter of jurisdiction does not enter into it, because the dominion can have any form of taxation it likes; but would it not be better, as a matter of principle, to have the tax imposed on property alone, property passing, rather than what is suggested here? I hope I have made my point clear.

Mr. ILSLEY:

This tax is on persons.

Mr. POULIOT:

I regret to have to make the statement to-night that I am strongly opposed to this sort of legislation. You will remember, Mr. Chairman, that in the fall of 1935, after the election, a dominion-provincial conference was held, at which the then Minister of Finance mentioned a succession tax to be imposed by the dominion government. That suggestion was made again in the Sirois report. I have tried to read that report, but found it impossible to do so; it is not readable matter. What I could read, after drinking several cups of strong coffee, was the eight-page summary, which contained in a nutshell all the recommendations of that commission. It is time to mention here, sir, what has been very unfairly said by the leader of the opposition; and if he smiles now, his smile will be of short duration. I hold in my hand an extract from the Ottawa Journal

of January 17 of this year, containing the report of a speech which was made concerning the work of that commission by the horn gentleman in Fredericton. I have always had respect for the dead; but the language used by the leader of the opposition, if not unworthy of him, was unworthy of the high functions of the leader of the great Conservative party of the past, which does not exist any more.

Mr. MacNICOL:

But it will soon.

Mr. POULIOT:

I remember that my hon. friend presided over two large powwows to select leaders, both of whom are now out of the game although they were great at the time of their selection, one because he was rich and the other because he was cocky. This report states:

The Ottawa conference on dominion-provincial relations ''failed not because of anything the Conservative party had done"-

The Conservative party had done nothing except wrongs.

-"but because of lack of national leadership"-

Hear, hear; national leadership! Think of that!

-"and 'because of a subversive element within the Liberal party"-

What was that subversive element? Can the hon. gentleman name it? Does he dare name it? He remains silent; it is just as well for him.

Speaking to a luncheon meeting of the Albany club, Mr. Hanson told leaders of the Conservative party: "We had an exhibition yesterday within the ranks of the Liberal party that made me blush for my country."

He blushes now because I read his own words. This language, used by the leader of a great party, is an utter shame.

He said that the only man on the original dominion-provincial relations commission who had a working knowledge of Canada's constitution was Hon. N. W. Rowell, who was forced by ill-health to retire from the chairmanship and was succeeded by Dr. J. R. Sirois, of Quebec.

Before Mr. Sirois came to Ottawa I did not know him as a doctor; it is not our practice in Quebec to use that title. He is a man who is very well read in the law; he is familiar with the legislation not only of the province of Quebec but also of Canada. The little I know of law I owe to him. I had great respect for him, more respect than I would have for any Tory, except the hon. member for Broadview.

With regard to the past, remember that the leader of the opposition knows very well what happened when the privy council declared the social legislation he had supported

Succession Duty Act

in this house was declared ultra vires. Then the chairman. Judge Rowell, came to the point where he could say that he could not understand the judgment of the privy council, just because he had been paid $400 a day to defend such legislation before the supreme court. I know whereof I speak, and the hon. member does not know-and does not need to make faces when I speak. I want him to show the dignity that belongs to the position he holds.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Mr. Chairman-

Mr. POULIOT:

And I do not want interruptions.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I suggest that this speech is entirely out of order.

Mr. POULIOT:

I am speaking.

The CHAIRMAN:

A point of order has been taken. Does any other hon. member wish to speak to it?

Mr. POULIOT:

Yes. In answer to the objection raised by the leader of the opposition, let me say that we are now discussing a resolution concerning succession duties. This measure would take from the provinces part of their power of taxation, in accordance with the suggestions contained in the Rowell-*Sirois commission report, which are familiar to all members in the committee. It is just on that account that I feel I am perfectly in order in mentioning the comment made by the leader of the opposition on precisely the same conclusions of that commission-suggestions which have been made, and which are embodied in these resolutions. When mentioning comments made by the leader of the opposition, I feel I am strictly in order because I express, I repeat, the views he has expressed outside the house, and on the very same matter we are now discussing. That is why I hope the chairman will let me proceed.

The CHAIRMAN:

Does any other hon.

member want to speak to the point of order? The resolutions we are studying have to do with succession duties. Resolution 1 embodies the principle of levying duties on successions in Canada. Section 2 of standing order 58 reads:

Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.

It is permissible in discussing this matter, which has also been the subject of an investigation by the Sirois commission, to make brief references to the Sirois report. But inasmuch as standing order 58, section 2, restricts the discussion strictly to the resolution now under discussion, it would be out of order to develop a general discussion on the principles

involved, because those principles should have been discussed when the budget speech was under advisement, and was being discussed.

To follow the rules of the house we must now limit discussion strictly to the resolution before the committee. My ruling is that although a brief reference to the principles studied, discussed and reported upon by the Sirois report is permissible in a discussion of this resolution, I am afraid the hon. member went beyond the proper limit of that latitude when he made reference to speeches made outside the house by the leader of the opposition. I would draw the hon. member's attention to the necessity to limiting his remarks strictly to the resolution before the committee.

Mr. POULIOT:

Yes, sir. I will put this clipping in my pocket.

The CHAIRMAN:

I do not believe that

the hon. member, if I heard him aright, with proper respect for the chairman, can say, that he will put that ruling in his pocket. I think the hon. member ought to adhere to the ruling, and observe the rules of the house.