Yea.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Those opposed will please say nay.
Nay.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Call in the members.
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Excise Tax Act and to provide: 1. That the rate of the general sales tax be increased from eight to ten per cent and that the rate of sales tax on those articles at present subject to four per cent be increased to five per cent. 2. That the excise tax on goods mentioned in schedule I of the act, and on furs, that are at present subject to the rate of fifteen per cent be increased to twenty-five per cent. 3. That the excise tax on candy, chocolate, chewing gum and confectionery that may be classed as candy or a substitute for candy, be reduced from thirty to fifteen per cent. 4. That there be imposed, levied and collected an excise tax of fifteen per cent on the following goods when adapted to household or apartment use: (a) stoves, hot plates, grills and other appliances when adapted wholly or in part for cooking and when designed for using other than solid fuels;
Excise TaX'Act (b) washing machines operated by electric or other power; " (c) electric, gas or kerosene refrigerators and freezing equipment and complete parts therefor including coils, condensing or compressor units, motors, cabinets, boxes, evaporators and expansion valves. 5. That the excise tax' on cigarette papers and cigarette paper tubes be repealed. 6. That the excise tax on the following goods be increased by the amounts * shown: (a) for each five cigarettes or fraction ol five cigarettes contained in. any package, three-quarters of one cent; (b) for each ounce or fraction of an ounce of manufactured tobacco, including snuff but not including cigars and cigarettes, contained in any package, three cents; (c) for each ounce or fraction of an ounce of Canadian raw leaf tobacco when sold for consumption in Canada, three-quarters of one cent. 7. That the sales tax on the following goods be repealed; (a) cortisone; (b) adrenocorticotrophin (ACTH). 8. That any enactment founded upon this resolution be deemed to have come into force on the eleventh day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty-one.
Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):
Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to take the time of the committee going over the ground again with regard to the arguments for and against the sales tax-
Hear, hear.
Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):
-except to say-
Mr. Graydon:
You asked for it, and you got it.
Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):
-that what three weeks ago was in the realm of prediction with regard to what would happen, now is quite clearly in the realm of fact. It has become clear that the effect of this tax is going to be to raise prices, and therefore the argument which was used against it, as I say, already is confirmed by the fact. But what I rise really to do, Mr. Chairman, is before this vote is taken-and here I am really following to some extent what the hon. member for Red Deer said yesterday-to remind the committee of the device which has been used by the government majority to prevent free expression of opinion in this committee on this question. We have here the excise tax items, eight in all. The sensible thing to do, as was pointed out, is to consider them seriatim; but that would have removed from the government one advantage which they saw in dealing with them together.
If they had dealt with them seriatim, if the first one had to be voted on by itself, then, as the hon. member for Red Deer pointed out yesterday, a good many Liberal members would have been in great difficulty.
Mr. Abbott:
They can vote on them when they come to the bill.
Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):
I will come to that; That is the point which the minister made. I noted that point with, great interest the other night, and I will do him the honour of referring to it before I am through. I just wanted to say that, as the hon. member for Red Deer made very clear yesterday, I have no doubt that a great many Liberal members of this house are finding exactly what those of us who are not Liberal members are finding, namely, that the voters in our constituencies are very much opposed to this increase in the sales tax. I imagine that voters in other constituencies represented by Liberals have the same kind of stomachs that voters in Conservative or other opposition ridings have. I imagine they have bodies that need the same kind of clothes to warm them, and we may hope that when the next election comes around they will have the same kind of heads.
I just want to point out that I think this device is an unworthy and rather a shabby one, taking away the right of free expression. I think that if somehow it could be vividly brought to the minds of the voters they would disapprove of it very much. I was interested to observe that the Minister of Finance said that when we came to the measure on the sales tax we would then have a certain number of sections which we could vote for or against. That seemed to me a curious argument, because-
Mr. Abbott:
When we come to the Excise Tax Act.
Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):
Yes. I thought that was a curious argument because it seemed to me that, whereas at that time we shall be able to have this one item split into several clauses so that we may give our views on each one, now we have quite a lot of other things thrown into one pot so that we may deal with them together. Of course the argument of Liberal members will be perfectly obvious. They will say: What did you want us to do with regard to the reduction of the excise tax on candy? Did you not want us to vote for that? Surely, you did not want us to vote against that. Well, if we did vote for it we had to vote for the whole lot together.
That is really the point that I wish to bring forward. I think that is a shabby and unworthy way of dealing with this thing, as was pointed out the other day. Apart from all other reasons, we really have made ourselves look silly by cruising over the ground backwards and forwards, and now we -have
to give this vote, which I say is a very unreal vote, because a great many people are going to vote with their hands tied.
The Deputy Chairman:
Perhaps now is as good a time as any to give a further explanation on the question that was raised the other day by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and again today by the hon. member for Greenwood, namely, this matter of considering a resolution of this type seriatim. This question of procedure was settled the other day on the motion moved by the leader of the opposition, which motion was negatived. Some surprise has been expressed as to why, when we study clauses of bills seriatim, the same cannot be done when considering a resolution of this kind. Let me dispose of this one point by quoting standing order 76, which says:
In proceedings in committee of the whole house upon bills, the preamble is first postponed, and then every clause considered by the committee in its proper order; the preamble and title to be last considered.
Citation 774 in Beauchesne, second edition, at page 222, says:
The bill is considered clause by clause. The chairman usually calls out the number of each clause, and reads the marginal note but he should give the clause at length when it is demanded' by the committee. Each clause is a distinct question and. must be separately discussed. When a clause has been agreed' to it is irregular to discuss it again on the consideration of another clause.
Therefore it is clear that the reason for proceeding clause by clause in committee on a bill is that it is so set out in standing order 76. Hon. members will agree that this matter of what is referred to as a complicated question is an important one. Since it was raised the other day by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-as a matter of fact, it was on Thursday last-opportunity has been had to study the problem with some care, and I am now prepared to give a further explanation.
In the first place, it is my view that what is before the committee is a single resolution. As hon. members know, under our practice a taxing bill cannot be introduced until a resolution has first been considered in the committee of ways and means. The present motion is a single resolution anticipatory of a number of tax changes to be contained! in a bill amending the Excise Tax Act.
To say that the resolution before the committee is a single resolution does not of course dispose of the question. It may be argued that since the resolution is composed of a number of distinct propositions it is open to any member to require that
Excise Tax Act
each proposition be put separately. In this connection, reliance has been placed on a passage in Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, fourth edition, at page 298, which seems open to the construction that a difference exists between complicated questions and questions containing two or more distinct propositions. However, the authorities which Bourinot quotes indicate that a so-called "complicated question" is one which contains a number of separate propositions which are capable of being divided, and that, although a member does not have the right to insist that they be so divided, a motion to that effect would be in order.
I think perhaps I should quote at some length from Hatsell, upon whom Bourinot relies. The following appears in his "Precedents", volume 2, at pages 118-121. It is rather lengthy, and I would ask hon. members to remain as silent as possible, so that they may give their attention to this very important quotation, which says:
When a question is complicated, that is, consists of two or more propositions, it has been often said, that it is the right of any one member to have it divided, in order that he may give his opinion upon each proposition separately. This was a very favourite topic with Mr. George Grenville, and often repeated by him, and at last insisted upon so much, in the question about the Middlesex election, on the 16th of February, 1770, that it was thought necessary to take the sense of the house upon it; which was done by a question, and carried in the negative, on the 19th of February: so that this matter is now at rest. Upon this occasion, every thing was urged that could be said in favour of the doctrine, as laid down by Mr. Grenville; but the truth is, there does not appear the smallest trace, in the history of the proceedings of either house of parliament, of this ever having been the practice; indeed, it would introduce universal confusion; for who is to decide whether a question is complicated or not?-"where'' it is complicated?-into how many propositions it may be divided? Perhaps, when the question was formed by the Speaker from the debate, and not moved by a member, it was a very proper objection to the manner of the Speaker's stating a question, that it was complicated, and to desire that he would separate it; and to this and this only, every thing that is said in the case of Ashby and White, and in the other debates, may be referred: But when a
question is moved and seconded, and proposed from the chair, however complicated it may be, the only mode of separating it, is by moving amendments to it; and these must be decided by the house, upon a question: unless, which sometimes happens, that the house "order" that it shall be divided, as they did in that very instance of the 19th of February; and on the 2nd of June, 1795; or by "consent" of the house, as on the 25th of January, 1771; the 9th of April, 1772; and in Lord Clive's case, on the 21st of May, 1773. Indeed, the doctrine of any one member having a "right" to insist upon anything, appears to be absurd; for another member may insist upon the contrary; and therefore, in all cases whatever,-
And I insist upon these last few words, -the only method of deciding whether anything shall, or shall not, be done, or how it shall be done,
Excise Tax Act
must be by moving a question to the house, that question to be seconded, and proposed from the chair, and the sense of the house taken upon it.
Cuishing, another author, in his "Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies, 1874", at pages 528 and 529, defines a complicated question as one which contains a number of distinct propositions and which is severable by motion but not on demand. And' the fifteenth edition of May recites at page 391 that the right of individual members to insist on the division of resolutions in committees of the whole house has never been recognized in England1,
In view of the foregoing, it is my ruling that when a single resolution containing several distinct propositions is before the committee of ways and means, it cannot be divided at the instance of any individual member, although a motion to so divide the resolution would be in order. It is for the committee to decide whether any particular resolution should be so divided. In so ruling, I am not unmindful of the fact that very often there is great convenience in proceeding severally with the various propositions embraced within a single resolution. However, as I have said, this is for the committee, and not the chairman, to decide.
I thought I should put this lengthy ruling on the record, because it clears up the question of whether a member as a matter of right has the privilege of asking that a question be divided, and also the point that this matter is not one for the chairman to decide, but that it must be done by a motion moved by a member.
Mr. Knowles:
May I ask a question based
upon the ruling just given? Before asking the question, however, perhaps I might be pardoned for expressing the hope that in future discussions on points of order some of the rest of us will not be criticized if we bring forward citations from 1875 or 1800, or even back as far as 1770.
Mr. Fournier (Hull):
You have done it
before.