May 14, 1936

CON

David Spence

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DAVID SPENCE (Parkdale):

The

hon. gentleman from Halifax (Mr. Finn) who has taken his seat always entertains the house. We are all delighted to hear him, but I really cannot follow what he has been saying, so he will excuse me if I pay no attention whatever to it.

Topic:   BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
Subtopic:   PROPOSED AMENDMENT RELATING TO TAXATION AND GUARANTEE OF PROVINCIAL DEBTS
Permalink
LIB

Robert Emmett Finn

Liberal

Mr. FINN:

That is a sort of left-handed

compliment. Perhaps my hon. friend may be deaf. If he heard all right I should like him to answer.

Topic:   BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
Subtopic:   PROPOSED AMENDMENT RELATING TO TAXATION AND GUARANTEE OF PROVINCIAL DEBTS
Permalink
CON

David Spence

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPENCE:

Yes, I heard all right;

thank you. He seems to have great faith in the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I hope he retains his belief.

Topic:   BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
Subtopic:   PROPOSED AMENDMENT RELATING TO TAXATION AND GUARANTEE OF PROVINCIAL DEBTS
Permalink
LIB

Robert Emmett Finn

Liberal

Mr. FINN:

I have implicit faith in him.

Topic:   BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
Subtopic:   PROPOSED AMENDMENT RELATING TO TAXATION AND GUARANTEE OF PROVINCIAL DEBTS
Permalink
CON

David Spence

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPENCE:

I did not know that this

proposal was of so much importance to the business world when I heard the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) introduce it this afternoon. I thought it was rather an argument to be taken up by my hon. and learned friend, and I was called from the house and forgot to come back. But when I returned I heard my hon. friend1 from Broadview (Mr. Church) making a splendid argument on behalf of the municipalities and the business world, both the wholesale and retail trades. He represents a riding in which there is more retail and wholesale trade than in any other riding in the city of Toronto, or even in Montreal, and he should know something of what he is talking about. He is to be commended for the argument he advanced. Men like myself, who are engaged in business, do not like to be continually under the necessity of rising to argue against legislation which is intended to hurt or has the effect of hurting the business world.

Business has been crucified for the last good many years. Everyone has the wrong con-

B.N.A. Act-Mr. Spence

ception of it; everyone-and this is true of legislators in particular-thinks the business world is always making money and can stand anything. To-day it is becoming a golddigging proposition with all governments to get money out of the business world in every possible way, whether or not it is making money. I hope this resolution will never pass this house, and if it does I hope it will not pass the senate. If the senate does not throw it out I hope it will be thrown out by the House of Commons in England, which I think will be the case. No provincial government should be given any such power as this.

Topic:   BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
Subtopic:   PROPOSED AMENDMENT RELATING TO TAXATION AND GUARANTEE OF PROVINCIAL DEBTS
Permalink
LIB

Paul Mercier

Liberal

Mr. MERCIER:

You will have a tremendous amount of work.

Topic:   BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
Subtopic:   PROPOSED AMENDMENT RELATING TO TAXATION AND GUARANTEE OF PROVINCIAL DEBTS
Permalink
CON

David Spence

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPENCE:

Topic:   BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
Subtopic:   PROPOSED AMENDMENT RELATING TO TAXATION AND GUARANTEE OF PROVINCIAL DEBTS
Permalink
LIB

Robert Emmett Finn

Liberal

Mr. FINN:

Why did the hon. member not buy it?

Topic:   BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
Subtopic:   PROPOSED AMENDMENT RELATING TO TAXATION AND GUARANTEE OF PROVINCIAL DEBTS
Permalink
CON

David Spence

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPENCE:

How could I buy it? I had nothing to buy it with. I might have had the down payment a few years ago, but I would not have enough now, due to too much interference, I will not say by whom.

Topic:   BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
Subtopic:   PROPOSED AMENDMENT RELATING TO TAXATION AND GUARANTEE OF PROVINCIAL DEBTS
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
Subtopic:   PROPOSED AMENDMENT RELATING TO TAXATION AND GUARANTEE OF PROVINCIAL DEBTS
Permalink
CON

David Spence

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPENCE:

May I tell you this, Mr. Speaker? Ever since I have been in this house the Liberal party, which is in power to-day, has interfered with business. They tinkered with tariffs; they put this industry and that, this man and that, out of business, and to-day we do not know where we are. They were the first to start interfering with business, when they came into power in 1921.

This resolution will also give the provinces the right to impose a turnover tax, as I understand it. Just what would a turnover tax mean? Does anyone know anything about it? Take the business I am in; supposing I turn over $10,000 worth of grapefruit, oranges, celery, lettuce and commodities of that kind, which would not be too much for me to turn over. Supposing I lose $1,000 on the deal. Will they come along with a turnover tax of one per cent, say, and take another $100 away from me? How would hon. members like a turnover tax of that kind? No man should make laws unless he knows something about what will be the result, or gets advice from someone who does know. Did Sir John Willison and Sir William Hearst ask one man who had practical knowledge for any information when they promoted that great warehouse on the waterfront of Toronto? If they had done so, that warehouse would never have been built, but they did not ask anyone. They did not know anything about what they were doing,

B.N.A. Act-Mr. Bennett

and it is the same with this government half the time; they do not know what they are doing. I think they are acting innocently; I do not believe they are doing this purposely, intending to hurt anyone. I have every confidence in the Minister of Justice; I think he intends to be fair, but he is like many others-

Topic:   BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
Subtopic:   PROPOSED AMENDMENT RELATING TO TAXATION AND GUARANTEE OF PROVINCIAL DEBTS
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

Did he not ask the hon. member?

Topic:   BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
Subtopic:   PROPOSED AMENDMENT RELATING TO TAXATION AND GUARANTEE OF PROVINCIAL DEBTS
Permalink
CON

David Spence

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPENCE:

I did not expect him to ask me. Then there is the sales tax. We now have a federal sales tax of eight per cent, and heaven knows, if we have another three per cent or four per cent added by the Hepburn government in Ontario, we shall have nothing left. They already have a gasoline tax of six cents per gallon, and I suppose they will now increase that to ten cents. There is the amusement tax which should be going to the municipality which enforces the by-laws, but that tax is all going to the province. They are getting all the money from the amusement tax, and I assume they will be allowed to increase that tax as much as they wish without any interference on the part of this government, because they are its personal friends. Then there is this tax on the patronage of hotels. That is imposed in some countries already, and I have no doubt the gold-diggers in Ontario, as well as in the other provinces, will lose no time in imposing it in Canada.

Seriously, I do hope the minister will reconsider this resolution, and will withdraw the proposition entirely. As far as I am concerned I will do anything possible to defeat it, either here, in the senate, in the old country, or in any other place.

Topic:   BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
Subtopic:   PROPOSED AMENDMENT RELATING TO TAXATION AND GUARANTEE OF PROVINCIAL DEBTS
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh.

Topic:   BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
Subtopic:   PROPOSED AMENDMENT RELATING TO TAXATION AND GUARANTEE OF PROVINCIAL DEBTS
Permalink
CON

David Spence

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPENCE:

My hon. friends need not display so much ignorance by laughing. Probably I have just as much influence some other place as they have, and if I cannot exert it myself I will get someone else to do so. I have that much influence, anyway. I sincerely hope the legislation will not go through, having in mind where the taxes come from to-day. These taxes are always designed to take money from the man in business, and he cannot pay any more than he is paying to-day. Already he is paying more than he can afford. This will be the last straw that will break the camel's back; it is going too far. I do not wish to take up any more time-

Topic:   BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
Subtopic:   PROPOSED AMENDMENT RELATING TO TAXATION AND GUARANTEE OF PROVINCIAL DEBTS
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Go ahead.

Topic:   BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
Subtopic:   PROPOSED AMENDMENT RELATING TO TAXATION AND GUARANTEE OF PROVINCIAL DEBTS
Permalink
CON

David Spence

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPENCE:

I like to say what I have to say in a few minutes, and I do not want to take up any more of the time of the house, though I cannot be accused of taking it up to any great extent.

Topic:   BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
Subtopic:   PROPOSED AMENDMENT RELATING TO TAXATION AND GUARANTEE OF PROVINCIAL DEBTS
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, I regard this matter as one of some importance. It is a much more important resolution than possibly some of our hon. friends realize. It is the foundation upon which the imperial parliament is expected to pass a statute, for after the statute of Westminster the understanding is that the imperial parliament will give effect to any request made in proper form by the parliament of Canada as to the amendment of our constitution.

I should like to point out that what we are in terms doing is seeking an amendment of an imperial statute. It is the British North America Act, and at the same time it is the constitution of this country. That statute was enacted by the parliament at Westminster, and that parliament only has power to amend it. The proposed amendment to the constitution is dealing with a matter which, as I shall try to point out, is of very great importance. When I recall the plea made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) on more than one occasion as to the manner in which amendments to the constitution should be approached I wonder that this resolution is in the form in which it is.

Possibly in view of the fact that so many hon. members are not members of the legal profession it might be well to point out just a few observations made in the privy council as to the nature of our constitution. I do not propose to do so at length, but it may serve some useful purpose in our appreciation of the importance of the matter we are now considering. First of all I should like to indicate that this statute, the British North America Act, is all-comprehensive, so far as our legal and constitutional position may be concerned. Notwithstanding the fact that there were Quebec resolutions upon which it was based the fact remains that those resolutions are no longer pertinent or relative to consideration of the act, from the standpoint of legality, and that we must consider the terms of the statute as construed by the courts.

For instance, one of the earlier references to the act in a judgment of the privy council is in the words following:

When the British North America Act enacted that there should be a legislature for Ontario, and that its legislative assembly

B.N.A. Act-Mr. Bennett

should have exclusive authority to make laws for the province and for provincial purposes in relation to the matters enumerated in section 92, it conferred powers not in any sense to be exercised by delegation from or as agents of the imperial parliament, but authority as plenary and as ample within the limits prescribed by section 92 as the imperial parliament in the plentitude of its power possessed and could bestow. Within these limits of subjects and area the local legislature is supreme, and has the same authority as the imperial parliament, or the parliament of the dominion.

Later, in reference to a case from New Brunswick the court said:

The act places the constitutions of all provinces within the dominion on the same level; and what is true with respect to the legislature of Ontario has equal application to the legislature of New Brunswick.

And again: ,

In 1867 the desire of Canada, for a definite constitution embracing the entire dominion, was embodied in the British North America Act. Now there can be no doubt that under this organic instrument the powers distributed between the dominion on the one hand, and the provinces on the other, cover the whole area of self-government within the whole area. It would be subversive of the entire scheme and policy of the act to assume that any point of internal self-government was withheld from Canada. Numerous points have arisen, and may hereafter arise, upon those provisions of the act which draw the dividing line between what belongs to the dominion or to the province respectively.

In the interpretation of a completely selfgoverning constitution, founded upon a written organic instrument such as the British North America Act, if the text is explicit the text is conclusive, alike in what it directs and what it forbids. When the text is ambiguous, as, for example, when the words establishing two mutually exclusive jurisdictions are wide enough to bring a particular power within either, recourse must be had to the context and scheme of the act. Again, if the text says nothing expressly, then it is not to be presumed that the constitution withholds the power altogether. On the contrary, it is to be taken for granted that the power is bestowed in some quarters unless it be extraneous to the statute itself as, for example, a power to make laws for some part of His Majesty's dominions outside of Canada or otherwise is clearly repugnant to its sense, For whatever belongs to self-government in Canada belongs either to the dominion or to the provinces, within the limits of the British North America Act.

And again:

They adhere to the view which has always been taken by this committee that the federation act exhausts the whole range of legislative power and whatever is not thereby given to the provincial legislatures rests with the parliament.

On another occasion the courts made similar observations, notably in the decisions

[Mr. Bennett.!

pronounced by Lord Haldane, who became Lord Chancellor in the early years of the twentieth century and who, until the time of his death, was largely responsible for the construction placed upon our constitutional act. Speaking of the general powers conferred upon the provinces, he said:

The provinces were to have fresh and much restricted constitutions, their governments being entirely remodelled. This plan was carried out by the imperial statute of 1867. By the 91st section a general power was given to the new parliament of Canada to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada without restriction to specific subjects, and excepting only the subjects specifically and exclusively assigned to the provincial legislatures by section 92. There followed an enumeration of subjects which were to be dealt with by the dominion parliament, but this enumeration was not to restrict the generality of the power conferred on it. The act, therefore, departs widely from the true federal model adopted in the constitution of the United States, the tenth amendment to which declares that the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to their people. Of the Canadian constitution the true view appears, therefore to be that, although it was founded on the Quebec resolutions and so must be accepted as a treaty of union among the then provinces, yet when once enacted by the imperial parliament it constituted a fresh departure, and established new dominion and provincial governments with defined powers and duties both derived from the act of the imperial parliament which was their legal source.

That, Mr. Speaker, I conceive to be an important statement, having regard to what I shall presently indicate. I have quoted these statements as a foundation for indicating that the powers of the provinces and of the dominion were defined by our constitutional act. In view of the fact that when they dealt with financial problems they did so in the manner indicated by sections 91 and 92 of the act, I think it might be well to read subsection 3 of section 91. It will be recalled that section 91 defines the powers of the federal parliament, and the powers with respect to taxation are indicated under the third heading, which states that the parliament of 'Canada shall have exclusive jurisdiction over "the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation." That makes it clear that this parliament may and, in fact, has exercised the power of raising revenue both by direct and indirect taxation. With respect to direct taxation the reference given this afternoon, namely the income tax of 1917, affords a clear illustration. With respect to indirect taxation it is only necessary to refer to customs and excise.

B.NA. Act-Mr. Bennett

But with respect to the power of the provinces to raise revenues we must turn to section 92 which provides that each provincial legislature:

... may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated, that is to say,-

2. Direct taxation within the province in order to the raising of a revenue for provincial purposes.

It will thus be apparent that when this act was enacted by the parliament at Westminster there was a clear-cut division as to the methods to be pursued by the new dominion on the one hand and the provinces on the other for the purpose of raising their revenues. While the widest power was conferred upon this parliament to raise revenues by any scheme or plan, direct or indirect, the limitation imposed upon the right of provincial legislatures to raise money by direct taxation within the provinces only was one that was thought to be in the interests of the general scheme of confederation as a whole. In that regard it is important to bear in mind an observation made in a case to which reference was made this afternoon by my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). I need not refer to the fact that in the very earliest days the problem of dividing direct from indirect taxation became important. We had a case from Quebec with respect to stamps to be placed upon policies of insurance, a case from1 Quebec with respect to stamps to be placed upon exhibits in the courts, cases with respect to taxing the banks upon their paid-up capital, and cases with respect to succession duties and matters of that kind, and it became necessary from time to time for the court of last resort to define what was meant by direct taxation. But in the earliest cases it was pointed out that it was no longer possible to define direct and indirect taxation with that finality of definition which may be attributable to works on political economy, but rather that 'these terms must be construed in the light of ordinary understanding. So, when a case, known as the Fairbanks case, came up from Halifax, in connection with the imposition of a business tax, it became necessary to restate the position, and that was done by the Lord Chancellor of the day, Lord Cave, in the following words, dealing with the question of the distinction between direct and indirect taxation:

The framers of that act-

The British North America Act.

-evidently regarded taxes as divisible into two separate and distinct categories, namely, those that are direct and those which cannot be so described, and it is to taxation of the

former character only that the powers of a provincial government are made to extend. From this it is to be inferred that the distinction between direct and indirect taxes was well known before the passing of the act; and it is undoubtedly the fact that before that date the classification was familiar to statesmen as well as to economists, and that certain taxes were then universally recognized as falling within one or the other category. Thus, taxes on property or income were everywhere treated as direct taxes.... On the other hand, duties of customs and excise were regarded by everyone as typical instances of indirect taxation. When therefore the Act of Union allocated the power of direct taxation for provincial purposes to the province, it must surely have intended that the taxation, for those purposes, of property and income should belong exclusively to the provincial legislatures, and that without regard to any theory as to the ultimate incidence of such taxation. To hold otherwise would be to suppose that the framers of the act intended to impose on the provincial legislature the task of speculating as to the probable ultimate incidence of each particular tax which it might desire to impose, at the risk of having such tax held invalid if the conclusion reached should afterwards be held to be wrong.

What then is the effect to be given to Mill's formula above quoted?

References were made to the definition of John Stuart Mill, and when that definition was accepted by the privy council, references at that time and later were made to the opinions of Mill, Ricardo, Adam Smith and others. But counsel representing the appellants in the case came to the conclusion that Mill's definition of direct and indirect taxation was better suited for his argumentative purposes, and the court at least adopted that view in the judgment which was delivered, and these are the words repeated again in 1933 by the court in respect to the Fairbanks case from Halifax. In dealing with that definition, or, as he called it, formula, His Lordship said:

No doubt it is valuable as providing a logical basis for the distinction already established between direct and indirect taxes, and perhaps also as a guide for determining as to any new or unfamiliar tax which may be imposed in which of the two categories it is to be placed; but it cannot have the effect of disturbing the established classification of the old and well-known species of taxation, and making it necessary to apply a new test to every particular member to those species. The imposition of taxes on property and income, of death duties and of municipal and local rates is, according to the common understanding of the term, direct taxation, just as the exaction of the customs or excise duty on commodities or of a percentage duty on services would ordinarily be regarded as indirect taxation; and although new forms of taxation may from time to time be added to one category or the other in accordance with Mill's formula, it

B.N.A. Act-Mr. Bennett

would be wrong to use that formula as a ground for transferring a tax universally recognized as belonging to one class to a different class of taxation.

That is the judgment of the judicial committee in 1933.

Topic:   BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
Subtopic:   PROPOSED AMENDMENT RELATING TO TAXATION AND GUARANTEE OF PROVINCIAL DEBTS
Permalink
LIB

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

What is the reference?

Topic:   BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
Subtopic:   PROPOSED AMENDMENT RELATING TO TAXATION AND GUARANTEE OF PROVINCIAL DEBTS
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

1928 Appeal Cases, pages 117, 124, 126, quoted with approval in the judgment of Lord Thankerbon in Attorney General for British Columbia and Kingcome Navigation Company Limited, reported in Appeal Cases, 1934, to which reference was made this afternoon. That exhausts all I desire to say with respect to the foundation of my observations.

Now I ask this question, Mr. Speaker: Having regard to the complex character of the financial relations between the dominion and the provinces; having regard to the acute distinction that was made by the framers of the constitution as to the powers to be exercised by the legislatures on the one hand and by parliament on the other, and having regard to the fact that only direct taxation was to be imposed by the provincial legislatures while any form of taxation was within the competence of this parliament, is it right or meet that this amendment should be made in the form in which we are now proceeding?

In the United States, if they were endeavouring to make this amendment to their constitution-and of course the powers of the states and of the federal authority are entirely different from what they are in Canada-the matter would first of all have to be dealt with by congress and then by each of the states until the adequate majority provided by the constitution was available. If in Australia they desired to deal with the matters that are being dealt with in this resolution they would have to proceed to amend their constitution in accordance with the provisions of their constitutional act, and seek the opinion of the people themselves with respect to both the amendment of the federal power and the amendment of the powers exercised by the states. That was done, as a matter of fact, in consequence of a condition which arose in Australia when in conference between the heads of states and the federal power it became clear that it was desirable to bring about very muich the same condition as is being brought about by the resolution now before this house. But I shall point out presently, and I think show conclusively, that there is no necessity at all for this amendment with respect to the exercise of some of the powers which we are endeavouring to

exercise. If we were seeking to make this amendment in South Africa, we would again, if the constitution were to be altered, have recourse to the various safeguards provided for that purpose.

An ordinary amendment to our constitution is not a matter of tremendous importance. An act to validate certain acts that were done when a province was created, as was Manitoba, an act such as that for which we sought authority in this house before 1930-all these are simple matters, but when you come to change the essential foundation of our whole financial system I submit that it should not be lightly done. It should not be done without there being at least some evidence of which one can say: Here is the evidence of the provinces having acted, or here is the evidence of the province requiring it, in the form of a resolution passed by the legislature of the province seeking the exercise of the powers sought in this resolution.

I will admit that that is not a tremendously important objection, but it is important when we come to deal with the fundamentals of the amending of a constitution in a matter of such transcendent importance as the financial power entrusted by the constitution to the legislatures, on the one hand, and to parliament, on the other. In this instance, if I seek to-day to ascertain whether or not the provinces have agreed, I can look in Hansard and all I can find is that some premier sent a telegram or some evidence of a meeting between gentlemen representing the federal government and gentlemen representing one of the provincial governments. Surely that is not the method which should be provided when one comes to deal with a matter so important as the altering by amendment of the whole financial system under which this federation came into being. That is my first submission with respect to this matter; that is the reason why I took the trouble to read 'these extracts in order that it might be apparent to even the lay members of the house that this distribution of power was not lightly made; that it represented the views as to how best the financial structure of the provinces could be maintained and within what limits they should exercise their taxing power, while on the other hand according to the federal parliament the power to tax by every means within the authority of a taxing power, namely, by either direct or indirect taxation.

Proceeding in the light of these observations, I desire now to direct attention to the first proposed amendment. This is an amendment to our constitution which will confer

B.N.A. Act-Mr. Bennett

upon the provincial legislatures a power not heretofore enjoyed. I shall not go over the argument so ably made this afternoon by my colleague, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. I shall content myself in a single sentence to point out tha't in the exercise of this power there is an effort to exercise jurisdiction which, under the constitution, belongs to the federal power. For many years the privy council has declared certain legislation beyond the competence of the legislatures or, as we lawyers say, ultra vires, and the law fell by the wayside. An instance in which Alberta sought to impose a tax in connection with coal mining was held to be bad, just as was the first fuel oil tax which British Columbia sought to impose. Other taxes in other provinces were held to be bad, because there was an effort on the part of the provincial legislatures to tax by indirect means when they had no authority or power so to do. Finally the second fuel oil tax of British Columbia came before the judicial committee for consideration in 1933. At that time it was pointed out that it was quite clear from the terms of the statute that it proposed to make the consumer of the fuel oil liable for the tax and it thereby became a direct tax, as distinguished from an indirect tax.

All taxes are paid by somebody and whether it be the last person or the first is not at the moment a matter of importance. For many years this distinction between direct and indirect taxation was the subject of much litigation, and this continued until the judicial committee decided in the fuel oil case that this power could be validly exercised in the manner and form provided by that statute. For that reason I point out 'that there is no necessity for this statute inasmuch as the principle established by that case gives the province every power it should have. In view of our exercising the powers we do, to confer upon the provinces the wider power of indirect taxation cannot but have reference to some form of taxation that one finds it difficult to conceive of in view of the judgment of the committee in that case.

A sales tax in Alberta is valid to-day, just as is the sales tax in New Jersey or New York city. If you buy a dollar's worth of goods, you have to provide two coppers or two cents as the tax imposed upon the consumer. Under the provisions of the sales tax in Alberta, a purchaser pays two cents, and so on as his purchases increase. That is a tax paid by the consumer. What indirect power to be vested in the legislature can one conceive of that could be validly exercised except for the purpose of, as I shall presently

point out, crippling the power exercised by the dominion?

Let us go a step further. I trust the house followed me when I pointed out that section 92 of the British North America Act, to which this is to be an amendment, provides the matters in relation to which the provincial legislatures may exclusively make laws. When this new section becomes effective we shall have taken from this parliament the power of indirect taxation to the extent that we have conferred it upon the provinces.

Topic:   BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
Subtopic:   PROPOSED AMENDMENT RELATING TO TAXATION AND GUARANTEE OF PROVINCIAL DEBTS
Permalink

May 14, 1936