February 14, 1939

CON
CON

James Earl Lawson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LAWSON:

We can easily stop it by discussing the item which has just been called.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Permalink
CON

Hugh Alexander Stewart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEWART:

We ought to go into two departments, according to the understanding, and no more. That is enough to keep us going.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Permalink
LIB

Malcolm McLean

Liberal

Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):

Is there a desire on the part of the acting leader of the opposition to take four departments to-night?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Permalink
CON

Hugh Alexander Stewart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEWART:

I do not think that question requires an answer at all. If the hon. member was listening he would know I said that the Prime Minister's statement meant one department. Why should I say four departments?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Permalink
LIB

Malcolm McLean

Liberal

Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):

It seems so foolish, when the department is available and when members are willing, that the hon. member who is acting as leader of the opposition should try to delay those departments getting into supply.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Permalink
LIB

Frederick George Sanderson (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

The CHAIRMAN:

Item 292.

946 COMMONS

Supply-National Revenue-Customs

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Permalink
CON
LIB

Frederick George Sanderson (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

The CHAIRMAN:

Public works, page 31 of the estimates.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Permalink
CON
LIB

Frederick George Sanderson (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

The CHAIRMAN:

Item 218 was to stand.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Permalink
CON

Hugh Alexander Stewart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEWART:

Are we going to follow out the understanding, or are we going to violate it? There is no desire to hold up the business, but the two departments taken will meet the requirements of the government to have something to deal with and something to discuss.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

If the hon. member thinks there is a breach of any understanding, we certainly will not proceed. But really I do not see why we should not go into those departments, in order to be ready to go on with them when the time comes. No hon. member is losing any privilege or any right by permitting that. But if the hon. member insists-

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Permalink
CON

James Earl Lawson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LAWSON:

We are losing the opportunity of discussing matters we want to discuss on going into supply.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Permalink
LIB

James Lorimer Ilsley (Minister of National Revenue)

Liberal

Mr. ILSLEY:

Do I understand, then, that the Department of National Revenue is before the committee, and that item 218 has been called?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Permalink
CON
LIB

James Lorimer Ilsley (Minister of National Revenue)

Liberal

Mr. ILSLEY:

And the question is whether items may be called in the Department of Public Works.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Permalink
CON
LIB

James Lorimer Ilsley (Minister of National Revenue)

Liberal

Mr. ILSLEY:

I presume the Prime Minister thought he had intimated that he wanted to go into the three departments named, but I do not know.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Permalink
LIB

Frederick George Sanderson (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

The CHAIRMAN:

Item 292.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Permalink

February 14, 1939