MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AND NATIONAL DEFENCE TAX-REFERENCES TO "GLOBE AND MAIL*' EDITORIAL Mr. J. L. O'BRIEN (Northumberland, N.B.): On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker: on May 15, when the national defence tax was being discussed in this house I made reference to the method by which it was deducted from the indemnity of members. At that time I said, as reported at page 2850 of Hansard: Now that we are pondering the problems of those in the lower income 'brackets, it seems to me that we should attempt to unscramble our [Mr. Pouliot.l own positions as members of parliament. We, of course, have to pay the national defence tax, and I wish it to be clearly understood that I am not objecting to paying that tax, but I am objecting to the method by which the tax is collected. I quote the following from the editorial page of the Toronto Globe and Mail of May 19: Members of parliament will pay national defence tax on their sessional indemnities. They'd better. Such exemption-and it has been discussed-would be for the average taxpayer about the last straw. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that from my remarks no such implication could properly be attached to any hon. member of this house. I made my point crystal clear-that I was not objecting to the deduction, but only to the method used to deduct it, in that an indemnity is not a salary. The Globe and Mail item does not mention my name, but since I was the only member making such a reference I here and now protest against statements of members of this house being twisted by any editor in order to attempt further to lower the standing of members of this house in the public opinion by implying that they seek to avoid their obligations.
Mr. R. W. GLADSTONE (Wellington South):
On a further question of privilege relating to the same article, which said the members of parliament will pay, it should have read that members of parliament "have been paying" the national defence tax.
Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface) presented the first report of the standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition) :
I am not opposing this motion; but what is the reason for the reduction of the quorum from twelve to eight? Eight is a small quorum for such a large committee.
Mr. HOWDEN:
It was felt that at this late stage of the session we might have difficulty getting a larger quorum, and the change is being made in order to ensure that we shall be able to carry on the work of the committee.
Motion agreed to. Bren Gun
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):
Yesterday I answered verbally a
question asked by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). The latter part of my answer related to a question the purpose of which, the hon. member explained, was to inquire as to who represented the government in connection with the drafting of the Bren gun contract. I replied at that time to the effect that the government was represented by the judge advocate general and by the officials of the Department of Justice. I spoke from memory; as a matter of fact I had not understood the hon. member's question. But last night I had the matter checked up, and I find that I was quite in error in my reference to the officials of the Department of Justice. What I find is that the judge advocate general himself represented the department in connection with the contract, and that he did not consult the Department of Justice about this particular contract. What the judge advocate said, and what I must have had in my mind, was that there was a clause in this contract which was similar to a clause in previous contracts, about which clause he had consulted the Department of Justice, and as I remember, what he said was that he considered that what was good enough for the Department of Justice was good enough for him to insert in the contract.
I regret the error and hasten to correct it.
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):
I should like to direct a question either to the Minister of National Revenue or to the Minister of Transport, based on a telegram which I have received and which I understand has been received by a number of other hon. members. The telegram reads:
Understand International Forwarders requesting permission to transport bonded goods on number 3 highway between border points. We urge opposition to move on grounds transportation facilities already adequate and heavy trucks would damage our highway system.
Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford):
Who
signed the telegram?
Mr. SENN:
My question is: Has a request been received by the government and, if so, has the government reached a decision with respect to the matter?
Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford):
Who
signed the telegram?