Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):

I appreciate the attitude taken by my hon. friend opposite in expressing his views on this subject. I am happy to hear him admit that there is no bad faith on the part of the department and, as he has said, on the part of the minister.

I must nevertheless say that we are right in drawing to the minister's attention a rather regrettable situation. I admit that there is

no bad faith involved but I do think that the form adopted was not such as should have been sent to such a large number of our fellow citizens. I know that it is meant not only for those who belong to such and such a religious denomination nor for those of a certain racial group, but for everybody.

Nevertheless, since most of the citizens living in my constituency are French-speaking and Catholic I have received many representations from those who are sincerely convinced that they were complying with the rules and regulations laid down by the income tax division in sending in receipts obtained from their priest, believing -that it was the proper method to follow in regard to income tax.

I believe, as I said before, that it is not a case of bad faith. However, since the officials' attitude may always be wrongly judged, it seems to me that it would have been possible to send a somewhat different form, one which would have said, for instance: contributions to such and such organization are not deductible; only those contributions directly concerned with the maintenance of the church and its priest are considered as charitable donations. So that, when mistakes had been made, they could have been served with a formal notice requesting them to apply to their local income tax inspector in order to make the necessary adjustments and, in certain cases, an inspector could even have been sent to obtain further details. If that method had been adopted, all this fuss and bad publicity which the department does not deserve in any case, would have been avoided. The sending of this form comes at a very bad time for those who sit on this side of the house. However, I am not blaming the officers of the department, because I believe they have tried to do their duty as well as they could. Unfortunately, the method to which they have resorted has not given the results they expected. In my opinion, the minister and the officers of his department now realize that there might be other ways of securing the information they want.

Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):

Mr. Chairman, I want to join the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard) in congratulating the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Courtemanche) for the fairness he has shown in dealing with this question. In the course of his remarks, the hon. member said that "any receipt bearing the signature of a parish priest seems to be systematically rejected". I would like to draw his attention to that point. In my estimation, he overdid it a little.

According to the statement made by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann)

in this house, it is not a matter of refusing to recognize the charitable donations to our parishes, regardless of the religious denomination of the clergymen and of the faithful, but rather to check, in the simplest possible way, the nature of those donations mentioned in the receipts annexed to income tax returns.

Like the hon. member for Ottawa East, I most earnestly and sincerely hope that the minister will be able to set up a system of investigation better suited to administrative purposes, in order to avoid the unfortunate misunderstandings which exist now and to which the newspapers referred recently.

Mr. Courtemanche:

If I intimated that receipts for charitable donations were not recognized as valid, I want to correct that impression. I meant that the public were under the impression that those receipts were being turned down. I did not say that the department was turning them down.

(Text):

Mr. McCann:

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that I am unable to reply in French to the hon. members who have spoken, but I understand that they have been speaking with reference to the matter of charitable donations. I want to have a word to say in that regard. The letters being sent to taxpayers by the Ottawa district office of the taxation division requesting details of the amounts claimed as charitable donations are not being sent solely to the taxpayers of any religious denomination or racial origin. That is the first point I want to make, that there is absolutely no discrimination.

The criterion for deciding to whom they are sent is the amount of their claim in relation to the income which they have reported, the number of dependents in the family and any indicated financial commitments of the taxpayer. While letters similar to those under discussion are not currently being sent by other district offices, those offices are taking other means to establish the validity of charitable donations. For example, one office has made extensive examination of church records in order to ascertain to what extent amounts contributed by individual members are recorded. Where it has been found that amounts contributed by a large number are not apparent from the church records, donation receipts have been questioned and in many cases the amount claimed has been disallowed in full.

Supply-National Revenue

It is apparent from the replies received to many letters sent by the Ottawa office that some taxpayers, and also some clergymen, are under the mistaken impression that the value of services contributed by a member to his church may be claimed as a donation for income tax purposes. While it might appear equitable to allow claims for such donations it would be necessary, if this were done, to treat an equivalent amount as income of the taxpayer who performed the services. If the amount contributed, including the value of the services rendered, was in excess of 10 per cent of the taxpayer's income the net effect of adding the value of his services to his income and allowing him to claim that amount as a charitable donation would be to increase his taxable income over the amount declared. Instead, where it is ascertained that the donations claimed include the value of services rendered, the amount so included is disallowed as a deduction.

To date the Ottawa office has sent letters to approximately 7,000 taxpayers and has received approximately 3,000 replies. On the basis of the replies received, more than 60 per cent of the cases have so far required an amendment to be made in the amount of charitable donations claimed. Increases in tax in the cases in which replies have already been received and adjustments are required have amounted in the aggregate to more than $40,000, or an average increase in tax per return adjusted of $25. Based on the results from the replies received to date, it would appear likely that the total increase in tax on this account will amount to more than $100,000 this year.

From the replies received to date, officials of the taxation division are of the opinion that only a very small percentage of the cases involved represent deliberate attempts on the part of the taxpayer to claim a greater deduction from his income than he is entitled to under the law. By far the largest percentage of the files reviewed to date indicate that the excessive claims made for charitable donations are the result of honest mistakes or ignorance of the law.

I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it is my duty and the duty of the department to collect taxes where they are owing. This questionnaire was sent out with a view to getting clearer information, and to enable us to deal more equitably with the taxpayer than had we taken the position that nothing was to be allowed where we knew the amount claimed was not according to the law or was excessive. There has been considerable discussion in Ottawa, particularly in some parts of the press, in connection with this matter and I

Supply-National Revenue think, in all fairness, that if a little more consideration were given to what was being done there would be a lot less harsh criticism.

Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):

I want to raise a question with the minister which I think is of considerable importance and causes considerable difficulty. It is often difficult for taxpayers to know when they have made a binding arrangement with the department. For example, I can give two or three instances about which I have been told. I believe it was in 1949 that the act was revised and the name changed from the Income War Tax Act to the new name. After that there were cases where previous arrangements were entirely upset on the ground that the arrangements under the Income War Tax Act were not followed under the subsequent act. However, that is a matter of history; that is water that is over the dam. I do not think there are cases of that kind now.

Second, I have been told there were cases in connection with the accrued coupon interest on bonds-a matter which, incidentally, was dealt with by legislation this year-where arrangements made not only by the local office but sent on and approved in Ottawa were upset.

Third, I happened to run across a case myself recently where an arrangement which was made with quite seniop officers-certainly not with junior officers but with quite senior officers-and which had been carried out for a matter of a few years, was then upset and taken to the courts.

The question I want to ask the minister is this. I think it would be of help to all concerned if the minister were able to make a statement as to just what is the policy of the department. Does it mean that the only thing that is binding is an arrangement made by the minister or a deputy; or is it at a certain level, or does it affect certain types of arrangements? I feel that it is a great hardship to a taxpayer to make what he considers to be a settlement with the department and then find perhaps even years later-it is not always a matter of months but sometimes years-that the arrangement is not regarded as binding by the department.

I would be the last person to reprove zeal on the part of the department. On the other hand, surely there must be something of the ordinary practices that prevail as between individual citizens in making arrangements with each other. I am not suggesting that the parallel is absolute, but I think it might be of interest if the minister could give an answer to that question.

Mr. McCann:

I think the hon. member will realize that in the Income Tax Act and the

Income War Tax Act there are few discretions left to the minister. It is stated there in the law what course shall be followed. I want to indicate to him that there is no such thing in the department, as far as I know, as the making of individual arrangements with any taxpayer. I think perhaps if I put on the record this statement-and I have given the matter some attention-it may clear up the situation.

It occasionally happens that when a taxpayer or a group of taxpayers are reorganizing their business affairs or have a transaction in mind on which the tax implications are uncertain, they will confer with the officers of the taxation division for an indication as to the possible application of the revenue laws. This was particularly so when the Income War Tax Act was in force because of the number of discretionary powers which were required to be exercised in assessing income tax at that time.

It is well established by decisions of our courts that the opinions given by the taxation officers under these circumstances do not alter the effect of the law. The courts will not give effect to the opinions of the tax officers which are not correct. Similarly, it is well understood that such opinions do not hold good when there has been a subsequent amendment to the law touching on the subject matter in question.

Subject to the foregoing the taxation division does try to stand behind the opinions it has given, particularly where taxpayers have contracted obligations on the basis of the opinion given as to the tax liability.

The present policy of the taxation division is to refrain from giving written opinions as to tax liability regarding prospective transactions. The officers of the division will discuss the various aspects of the law that may apply to the transaction informally with the taxpayer without making any commitment on behalf of the department.

Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):

I am not

going to pursue the matter at length, but I must say that I am a little bit disappointed at what the minister said. First of all I want to remind the minister that under the act-I think it is section 126-there is still the widest discretion left to the minister really to introduce an entirely new set of considerations. I mean there is discretion for him to introduce practically non-technical and non-business considerations into the interpretation.

But to pass on from that, may I say that I think it is also true to say that, quite apart from indications given to people while in the

course of reorganizing their business-which is the case the minister has confined himself to-there must be a great many cases where the application of the act is not quite as simple as 2 plus 2 equals 4, as in connection with cases of depreciation and things of that kind, where inevitably there must be some measure of discretion.

I say again, without pursuing the matter, I was hoping the minister might have gone a little bit further. His statement was so general and so tentative that it really does not give any help to any taxpayer. I had hoped that the minister might be more specific. Of course I cannot force the minister to say anything he does not want to say; but I think it would have been helpful if the minister could have added something to what he said.

Mr. Knowles:

Mr. Chairman, there is

another matter about which I should like to say a few words. When I have finished what I wish to draw to the minister's attention, I hope that his tax-collecting officials will apply in this sphere the same zeal as he indicates they apply in some other spheres.

I have in my hand a clipping from the Toronto Telegram of Wednesday, April 22, 1953, which contains an article written and signed by Norman Campbell. In this article Mr. Campbell has quite a bit to say, but I shall quote only a few portions of it. He starts off by saying:

The Department of National Revenue, which collects Canada's income taxes, recognizes that in some cases political contributions are a necessary expense of doing business.

Some contractors-especially those on roads in one or two provinces-have told the department quite openly that they cannot stay in business unless they make political contributions.

Mr. Norman Campbell goes on to make reference to what is in the Criminal Code or in the Income Tax Act or is not in those statutes. Then he says:

However, it is provided that all necessary expenses of business may be deducted from taxable income. So despite the fact that the law does not recognize political contributions as a legitimate business expense, they have been allowed as deductible.

I ask that the next paragraph be noted in particular because it contains a statement allegedly made to the Telegram, and the statement is put within quotation marks. It is as follows:

An income tax official told the Telegram: "Road contractors say quite openly to us that they have to pay out perfectly good money to someone. You may be sure some latitude is given them. They say they couldn't stay in business otherwise."

Then Mr. Campbell goes on to say:

Political contributions are not classed as charity. The question National Revenue asks is this: "Are the contributions necessary to earn the income."

Supply-National Revenue Some people are embarrassed in answering this question, but the department concedes in some cases that political contributions are necessary to earn the income.

In some tax returns the political contributions may not be set forth as such. Indeed, it would be impossible to obtain a receipt for them in some cases. But nevertheless the deductions are smuggled into the returns.

I now want to say, Mr. Chairman, that already during the course of this session the minister has given an answer to certain questions which I put on the order paper and which arose out of this newspaper article. If he recalls giving me these anwers, he may wonder why I was not satisfied with the answers and why I do not let the matter go at that. Despite the answers given by the minister-which answers are quite categorical-it seems to me that in that article written by Mr. Campbell there are suggestions which indicate that somebody in the department has been talking about this matter, and which also indicate that there may be ways and means of getting around the regulations and the practices of the department. I asked the minister by means of order paper questions which appeared in Hansard on Wednesday, May 6, 1953, at page 4837, the following:

Does the Department of National Revenue, in some cases, recognize contributions made by contractors to a political party as a necessary business expense?

The answer of the minister was no. My second question was:

Are contractors, in some cases, allowed a deduction for corporation income tax purposes with respect to contributions made to a political party?

Again the answer of the minister was no. My third question was:

If so, how many contractors were allowed such deductibility in each of the last five years?

Of course the minister's answer to that was:

Answered by Nos. 1 and 2.

I have no doubt that is the established policy of the department. After all, there is no provision in the act, so far as I know, for contributions to political parties to be allowed as deductible for income tax purposes; and knowing something of the rigidity with which the department administers the law, I have no doubt that they adhered to that rigidity in this case. But there are two things about this article by Norman Campbell which prompt me to raise the matter again. The first is the statement to which I drew particular attention when I was reading the article, to this effect:

An Income tax official told the Telegram: "Road contractors say quite openly to us that they have to pay out perfectly good money to someone. You may be sure some latitude is given them".

5406 HOUSE OF

Supply-National Revenue

That suggests that this reporter was certainly convinced that something along this line was being done. The other point in that article by Mr. Campbell which makes me raise this again is the suggestion that:

In some tax returns the political contributions may not be set forth as such.

In other words, to use his own language, these political contributions "are smuggled into the returns" somehow. I should like to have the comment of the minister on this. I have no doubt that his reply as to whether or not this practice is allowed will be the same as that which he gave in Hansard on May 6, 1953, that it is not allowed; but I should like to know whether he is prepared to apply the same zeal that he applied a while ago to another question as to whether practices of this kind go on, in an endeavour to ferret out any cases such as these Mr. Campbell had in mind, cases such as this income tax official must have had in mind when he spoke in these terms to the reporter.

Mr. McCann:

My answer to the hon. gentleman's inquiry is just the same as the one I gave in the return. A man or a corporation may do what he likes with his own money, but for income tax purposes it is not a deductible expense. Any contribution he makes for political purposes is not a deductible expense, because it is not money spent to earn that income. I suggest to the hon. member that the author he has quoted is drawing on his imagination, and he could not substantiate the statements that he makes. That is a pretty broad statement; but in the eight years I have been connected with the department I do not know of any one single instance of that kind. It is true that they may have been claimed, but I do not know of any one single instance where contributions for political purposes have been allowed as an expense of doing business and have been deductible from their taxable income.

Mr. Knowles:

Has it ever been found that any contributions or any claims put in under other designations have been part of political contributions and therefore disallowed?

Mr. McCann:

Not that I know of. It may

have been tried, but I suggest to you that our assessment system is sufficiently efficient to detect that type of evasion.

Mr. Knowles:

Has the minister any idea as to who the official would be who would make the categorical statement that Mr. Campbell quotes in his article?

Mr. McCann:

Not the slightest, and I challenge the hon. member's offer to name him.

Mr. White (Middlesex East):

Before this item passes there are one or two things I

should like the minister to comment on. I should like to deal first with the finding of Mr. Justice Locke of the supreme court on April 15. It dealt with the Stanley Mutual Fire Insurance Company of New Brunswick and their claim that they were not required to pay income tax. That claim has been allowed. The decision was the unanimous conclusion of the supreme court.

As I understand it, down through the years this tax has been collected from mutual fire insurance companies. The situation is such that over the years, with the increasing amount of insurance placed by farmers and others interested in mutual insurance, the amount of risks has climbed a great deal, and the reserves that the mutual companies have been able to build up have been seriously curtailed because of the taxes. Therefore if any great losses occurred these companies would not be able to pay them because of the great amount of risk and taxes paid.

I have in my hand a report of the Westminster Township Mutual Insurance Company. This is the company with which my own farm buildings are insured. I find that for the year ended December 31, 1950, the company paid $966.11 in income tax. The net insurance in force on the same date was $6,680,205, and the balance on hand on December 31 was $58,391.46. It would seem to me that over the years taxation has reduced that balance to rather dangerous proportions. While the income tax department may have collected this tax legally, that does not make it right. I heard of a man who wanted a collecting agency to collect a bill. He went to the firm and said: "Now, I want you to collect this account. If you can't collect it by fair means, take legal proceedings." That is pretty well what the income tax department have done in this case. They have collected legally, but I would not say it was a fair tax.

In view of the fact that the supreme court have ruled that it was not right to collect the tax, will the department consider rebating or returning the moneys to these mutual insurance companies.? I wanted to look over the entire findings of the supreme court, but upon examination I found that they consisted of some 26 pages and it would cost me $7 to secure the document. I thought I could tell the minister all that was necessary about this particular item that I am interested in.

The other matter I wish to bring to the minister's attention deals with income tax levied against a veteran and his wife. The veteran is totally disabled. He is drawing total disability pension, and he was advised by the casualty section of the Department of Veterans Affairs in the matter. They gave him a letter, with instructions for tax use.

When the tax was paid in 1947 this man and his wife were assessed as single persons. I understand-and I am not certain of this; the minister will correct me if I am wrong- that in the revision of 1949 there were some changes made. But during the years 1947 to 1950 he and his wife were wrongly charged, and she has overpaid to the tune of $475. The department has refused to return this amount. In 1950 the income tax branch acknowledged that the couple were justified in claiming the exemption, and did not charge them for the years 1950-51 and 1951-52. In view of the fact that the pension received by the veteran is not earned income, I think this case should be looked into. I shall be glad to give the minister the details at a later time.

Then there is one other matter I would bring to his attention. During the latter part of the tax year, accountants file a large number of returns of their clients and this difficulty arises. I am glad the collector of income at London has seen fit to change his method; and when these returns are taken to the office I will agree they are taken at a time when many returns are being filed. However, the accountant is asked to turn in those returns, and is given no receipt for them. There may be 25, 50 or 100, as the case may be, with cheques attached to pay the tax. The accountant does not have even the scratch of a pen to show that he has made the return for his client.

Upon making inquiries I pointed out that they could be lost. I was assured that such was not the case. It has since been brought to my attention in respect of two cases that returns have been lost in some way or another. In view of the fact that a great deal of money is sometimes involved in these returns I think it is only fair and proper that individuals who cannot have returns assessed immediately should have a receipt in some form or another. I have suggested to the department that when an accountant takes down 25 or 50 returns, as the case may be, they should be duly recorded, and he should have a signature for the whole batch of them.

Mr. McCann:

The matter to which the hon. member for Middlesex East has referred has to do with a judgment of a judge of the supreme court with reference to the Stanley Mutual Fire Insurance Company. This is a mutual fire insurance company operating under a New Brunswick statute whereby it was required to set up certain reserves after the payment of its operating expenses and losses. The statute provides that the reserve fund-

-shall be the property of the insurer as a whole and no member shall have a right to claim any

Supply-National Revenue

share or interest therein . . . nor shall such fund be applied or dealt with by the insurer or the board other than in paying its creditors, except on the order of the governor in council.

The taxation division considered that the company was subject to income tax in respect of the amount added to the reserve in each year. The company appealed the assessment but conceded that it was taxable on the income earned by the investments in the reserve fund. The case reached the Supreme Court of Canada and it was held that the amounts accumulated by the company and added each year to the reserve fund were neither profits nor gains of the company, and hence not subject to income tax.

The hon. member will be interested to know that this decision-and we have to accept a decision of the supreme court- will be applied in respect of other mutual insurance companies for taxation years which have not yet been assessed or, if already assessed, are presently under appeal. It will, of course, be necessary that such other companies are operated in a manner which comes within the reasons for judgment of the supreme court, and each case will have to be considered on its own merits.

With respect to the veteran and his wife, if the hon. member will place the details of that case before us later, we shall be glad to look into it.

Then, concerning the complaint about the accountant in London-Mr. Fitzgerald-all he has to do is tabulate the list of returns he brings in, and he will receive a receipt.

Mr. White (Middlesex East):

I wish to thank the minister for the answers he has given.

Mr. Blackmore:

Mr. Chairman, I know the minister has a reputation for taking great care in seeing that everything in his department is done just right, and because of that I have a high respect for him. Therefore he will hear with considerable concern, no doubt, the fact that I have been informed by men who are in a good position to know, I think, that in an area surrounding the town in which I live no less than $100,000 is taken out of the district every year by income tax officials under false pretences.

I am told the general method of doing this is to write to a farmer who seems to be fairly prosperous and tell him it has been discovered that he owes $4,000 more income tax. The farmer may write and ask on what grounds this additional levy is made, and he will receive a more or less evasive letter, but a letter which implies a threat. In a general way the farmer is given to understand that there is no use trying to avoid this further payment, and that the best thing

5408 HOUSE OF

Supply-National Revenue for him to do is to send in the $4,000 and be done with it.

I have been given names of farmers who have been afflicted in this way; in fact farmers have given me their names, themselves. Yet they fear to have me use the names lest next year they will be victimized, persecuted and penalized in ways in which it seems the income tax officials in that particular area are becoming quite proficient.

All this may be wrong; it might not be soundly based; but I am sure the minister will be interested to know that that information has been given to me by men who have had wide experience.

I have a case to which the minister has given some consideration and concerning which he will be pleased to receive details so that he may be enabled to make an investigation. I refer to the case of Ralph Weston. The minister has been very sympathetic in his personal talks with me. I have the impression, however, that he has not been adequately informed even by those whose responsibility it was to give him accurate information. I propose to ask a few questions regarding this Ralph Weston case which will simplify the minister's problem in looking into it. Then probably when we come back he will tell us what he has learned about it.

The minister may wonder whether all I am saying is entirely correct, that is, whether I may have been misinformed. I will tell the minister about one experience concerning which I have documentary proof. This occurred in Cardston in 1951. The Cardston co-operative creamery was assessed for over $2,000 more than it owed in that year. I have here the letter which the income tax department wrote to the Cardston creamery. The Cardston creamery association was greatly concerned. They had their own auditor and their own income tax adviser, but in spite of everything they could do they could not get the sympathetic attention of the income tax officials in Calgary. They sent me a letter concerning the matter and I started to work on the case.

Mr. Scully was then in the minister's department. When I first mentioned the matter to him he was quite resentful. He was positive that the income tax officials would not make any such error. I probably was just about as sharp as he was about the matter, and he finally said in a pique that he would go to Calgary and find out. He went to Calgary and found that the Cardston co-operative creamery was exactly right, that they had been wrongly assessed for over $2,000 which, if they had let it go, would have constituted an absolute theft from the

Cardston creamery by the income tax department. Probably "theft" is a little too strong a word, but the department would have taken the money away from them without any justification. That is the kind of thing about which we are concerned.

It was while I was discussing the Cardston creamery matter that I was given the information which I have just given the minister concerning the amount of money mulcted from the area around Cardston every year. It is not the same people every year. It is different people, but there are enough there to enable the department to do a pretty good business in collecting money under false pretences. I am going to ask a number of questions which the minister may present categorically to his income tax officials.

First, did an inspector from the Calgary income tax office in November of 1950 inspect the books of Ralph Weston, building contractor of Cardston, Alberta?

Second, was the cause of that inspection the fact that Mr. Weston had complained to the Minister of National Revenue concerning the tax levied against him for the years 1944 and 1945?

Third, as a result of the complaint and the inspection was Mr. Weston refunded $60.72 for his 1944 return and $130.45 for his 1945 return?

Fourth, did that income tax official on that occasion raise any objection to Mr. Weston's method of keeping books? I think the minister will find that the answer there will be no.

Fifth, did the income tax department refrain from refunding on Mr. Weston's income tax until after the said inspector had personally inspected Mr. Weston's books and verified Mr. Weston's claims? The answer to that question will be yes. No amount of effort by Mr. Weston had been sufficient to bring the Calgary officials to a sympathetic consideration of his case until the inspector actually came right to his office, inspected his books and found, as was found in the case of the Cardston co-operative creamery, that Weston was right and the income tax officials were wrong.

Sixth, has Mr. Weston been filing income tax returns regularly since 1941? I think the minister will find the answer there is yes.

Seventh, during all those years has Mr. Weston once been delinquent in filing his income tax returns? I think the minister will find the answer there will be no.

Eighth, was he ever during those years delinquent or negligent in paying his income

tax? I think the minister will find the answer there will be no.

Ninth, during those years did Mr. Weston have trouble in respect of assessments at least once? I think the minister will find the answer there will be yes.

Tenth, in how many other years did Mr. Weston have trouble with assessments? The minister will find that the answer is several.

Eleventh, did an income tax official early in October, 1952 call on Mr. Weston to see Mr. Weston's books and had Mr. Weston had any notice that an income tax official was coming to see his books on that date?

Mr. McCann:

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I suggest that this is not the place at all for that type of question. I can tell the hon. member now that I have no intention of answering these questions here even if I knew the answers. I am precluded from discussing or revealing to the public the private business of any taxpayer, and if I answered these questions I would be divulging information which I am sworn not to divulge. If the hon. member has particular cases concerning which he desires information the department will be very glad to supply it so far as it can.

Some of these questions the hon. member is asking have to do with matters concerning which I have spent a good deal of time with the hon. member in discussing them personally. I have done everything possible over the past year or two to adjust these cases satisfactorily within the law. I think we are only wasting time in having a series of questions which the hon. member answers himself. We want to conduct our business and get it finished. It is most unfair to other members in the house if we are going to be held up in this manner.

Mr. Blackmore:

If there is anything on which this house can afford to spend its time it is an abomination such as was committed against Mr. Weston. There is no doubt about that, and if the minister hesitates about giving the information I will give it.

Mr. McCann:

You can give it.