March 25, 1955

PRIVILEGE

MR. POULIOT CORRECTION OF CERTAIN PRESS REPORTS


Mr. Jean-Fran?ois Pouliot (Temiscouaia): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Three French-language newspapers, Le Droit, he Soleil and La Presse, have printed a summary of a speech delivered by me in Toronto, last Tuesday, regarding the Canadian flag. Now one of the paragraphs is not accurate, and the same inaccuracy appears in all three papers and probably in other Canadian Press dispatches. The member added that, if Canada cannot have any national flag, the red ensign should at least carry a larger maple leaf and be rid of its outdated emblems. L'Action Catholique of March 24 published another dispatch which is even more inaccurate than the one I have just quoted. Toronto-Mr. Jean-Frangois Pouliot, Liberal member for Temiscouata, asked for a "distinct and official" Canadian flag without the maple leaf. He told the Toronto junior board of trade that the union jack could fly next to this new national flag, but that it should not eclipse it. The reports published by the Toronto Telegram and the Ottawa Journal were far more accurate. Briefly, here is what I said: (Text): I do not want the union flag to be minimized as a fraction of the flag. If we are to have it, let us have it full-size, but let us also have a truly Canadian flag. Both could be hoisted together.


?

Some hon. Members:

Order.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. POULIOT CORRECTION OF CERTAIN PRESS REPORTS
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. Pouliot:

I continue:

Is it not the time to have a distinctive and official Canadian flag bearing only one emblem, a large maple leaf, which will tell all the other nations of the world that Canada is the greatest of them all?

(Translation):

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. POULIOT CORRECTION OF CERTAIN PRESS REPORTS
Permalink
LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

I should not want the intervention of the hon. member to create a precedent and, if I did not call him to order before, it was because I had doubts as to his right to raise the question of privilege in this house for the purpose of correcting newspaper reports of a speech he made outside the house. The hon. member, being an expert in procedural matters, may not share

my doubts on this point; at any rate, I should like to make these remarks in order that this case be not considered as a precedent. (Text):

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. POULIOT CORRECTION OF CERTAIN PRESS REPORTS
Permalink

VETERANS AFFAIRS


First report of special committee on veterans affairs.-Mr. Tucker.


PRIVATE BILL

FIRST READING


Bill No. 281, to incorporate St. Mary's River Bridge Company.-Mr. Nixon.


OIL-INQUIRY AS TO ACTION ON UNITED STATES RESTRICTIONS


On the orders of the day:


PC

Donald Methuen Fleming

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):

Mr. Speaker, in view of the representations made to the United States Senate finance committee as to the views of the administration in relation to the quantitative restrictions on the imports of crude oil from Canada and elsewhere, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if the Canadian government will make it abundantly clear to the United States administration that the proposal to have these restrictions enforced by individual producers is no more acceptable than is the proposal to have the restrictions imposed by the government and that if this type of proposal is persevered in it is likely to disturb very seriously Canadian confidence in our trading relations with the United States?

Topic:   OIL-INQUIRY AS TO ACTION ON UNITED STATES RESTRICTIONS
Permalink
LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Defence Production; Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):

Mr. Speaker, the proposal of the administration antedates the legislation that was introduced in the United States congress. Both proposals were known to this government when our protest was filed and I think the subject matter of our protest deals adequately with both proposals.

Topic:   OIL-INQUIRY AS TO ACTION ON UNITED STATES RESTRICTIONS
Permalink

INCOME TAX

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF TERM USED BY INCOME TAX APPEAL BOARD


On the orders of the day:


LIB

James Joseph McCann (Minister of National Revenue)

Liberal

Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):

Mr. Speaker, with reference to the question asked on March 21 by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn) who inquired what the income tax appeal

Inquiries of the Ministry board meant by the term "psychological discounts" when reviewing the case of a Winnipeg lumber firm, I would state that evidently he has reference to a decision of the income tax appeal board in the case of McDonald-Dure Lumber Co. Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue.

This company in selling lumber to its customers allowed a discount, presumably for prompt payment. In its income tax returns the company deducted the amount of the discounts from its accounts receivable. The assessor considered that the discount was only a contingent reserve and disallowed the deduction claimed. At the hearing the company established that the discount was always given the customer even if payment was late and the board therefore found that it was not a contingent reserve. Mr. Fordham, the member of the board who rendered the decision, made the statement that "the amount of the discount was added to an account simply for the psychological effect on the customer who was led to believe that by paying his account promptly his bill would become 10 per cent less". The term "psychological discounts" was apparently used by a newspaper in reporting this judgment.

It might be explained that in assessing taxpayers on an accrual basis all sales made in the year are included in income-less a reasonable reserve for bad debts-whether the customer pays or not. Had these discounts been established to be contingent only they would not be allowed as a deduction until the account was paid and the discount in fact established.

Topic:   INCOME TAX
Subtopic:   REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF TERM USED BY INCOME TAX APPEAL BOARD
Permalink

REPORTED NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ACT BY POST OFFICE OFFICIALS

March 25, 1955