March 24, 1939

CON

Henry Herbert Stevens

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEVENS:

It was an individual case, was it not, not a question of principle?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OP NATIONAL REVENUE
Permalink
LIB

Robert Wellington Mayhew

Liberal

Mr. MAYHEW:

It is not an individual case when thousands of investigations are going on at the present time throughout Canada.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OP NATIONAL REVENUE
Permalink
CON

Henry Herbert Stevens

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEVENS:

It sounded like it.

Mr. O'NEILL: I believe the income tax is one of the fairest taxes that we have in Canada because it is collected from people who are best able to pay. In my opinion one of the great troubles is that too much of the wealth is in too few hands. This schedule of income taxes goes up one per cent per $1,000 until 18 per cent is reached, and then it refers one to chapter 41 for the taxes on the higher incomes. If the schedule is correct that far, why should there be any change? If it is not correct in the lower brackets, why not change the income tax set-up and have it right from the start? The increase in taxation should continue right from the start. In other words, when you reach a certain income there should be 100 per cent tax.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OP NATIONAL REVENUE
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

The CHAIRMAN:

Does the item carry?

Mr. O'NEILL: Is that an unreasonable or unfair question?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OP NATIONAL REVENUE
Permalink
LIB

James Lorimer Ilsley (Minister of National Revenue)

Liberal

Mr. ILSLEY:

I did not know the hon. gentleman was asking a question; I thought he was making a suggestion. I can tell him that there are persons in Canada who, if they were situated in a certain way, would have to pay the whole of their income in taxes.

Mr. O'NEILL: What amount of income is that?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OP NATIONAL REVENUE
Permalink
LIB

James Lorimer Ilsley (Minister of National Revenue)

Liberal

Mr. ILSLEY:

Is that not a question which should be asked privately?

Mr. O'NEILL: I am sorry if I asked an unfair question or a question which should not be asked here. It seems to me that if this schedule is right at the start there is no reason why it should not continue right along from there. If the schedule is wrong at the start, it should be corrected. There should be no difference between the low paid man and the high paid man.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OP NATIONAL REVENUE
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. COLDWELL:

Is any information available as to the income taxes paid by any group of taxpayers according to the size of their incomes?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OP NATIONAL REVENUE
Permalink
LIB

James Lorimer Ilsley (Minister of National Revenue)

Liberal

Mr. ILSLEY:

Will the hon. gentleman allow that question to stand?

Item stands.

Progress reported.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OP NATIONAL REVENUE
Permalink

REPORT RESPECTING ORGANIZATION AND RECLASSIFICATION OF PERMANENT STAFF


The house having reverted to the order for motions.


LIB

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

Liberal

Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. COMMONS

Carriage by Air-Warsaw Convention

Ilsley), that the report of the civil service commission in respect of the organization and reclassification of the permanent staff of the House of Commons, together with resolution of the commissioners of internal economy, laid on the table of the house on March 20, 1939, be approved. [DOT] I am told it is important that this should go through to-day.

Topic:   REPORT RESPECTING ORGANIZATION AND RECLASSIFICATION OF PERMANENT STAFF
Permalink
CON

Henry Herbert Stevens

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEVENS:

What is the significance of this report? We ought to know what we are voting on.

Topic:   REPORT RESPECTING ORGANIZATION AND RECLASSIFICATION OF PERMANENT STAFF
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

There is no increase. As a matter of fact, there is a decrease of a little more than $2,000 over last year by reason of the fact that one employee has not been replaced and another one has been retired. This is just for the purpose of adjusting the salaries and paying the proper compensation for the same amount of work. It was approved by the commissioners of internal economy, and it has to go through the house.

Topic:   REPORT RESPECTING ORGANIZATION AND RECLASSIFICATION OF PERMANENT STAFF
Permalink

Motion agreed to. At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order. Monday, March 27, 1939


March 24, 1939