July 29, 1942


On the orders of the day:


CON

John George Diefenbaker

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):

I wish to ask a question of the Minister of 44561-3101

National War Services. The press carries an item to the effect that the nineteen-year-old class is about to be called and that some-alteration is being made to reduce the age-limit at which young men are called fromi twenty years to nineteen years. Would the minister be prepared at this time to make a statement?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MILITARY SERVICE
Sub-subtopic:   PRESS REPORT AS TO CALLING OF CERTAIN CLASSES
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Thorarinn Thorson (Minister of National War Services)

Liberal

Hon. J. T. THORSON (Minister of National War Services):

There is no truth in the

report.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MILITARY SERVICE
Sub-subtopic:   PRESS REPORT AS TO CALLING OF CERTAIN CLASSES
Permalink

WAR RISK INSURANCE


The house proceeded to the consideration of the amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 56-Mr. Usley-to make provision with respect to insurance of property against war risks and the payment of compensation for Avar damages. Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) r Mr. Speaker, the motion I desire to make with regard to this order is this: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this house disagrees with their amendment to section 26 of Bill No. 56, for the following reasons: Because the said amendment extends the scope of the bill as passed by the House of Commons. I have an opinion from the Clerk of the House of Commons to the effect that this amendment contravenes constitutional usage and practice in that it extends the scope of Avhat is essentially a money bill. I have here a note of the respects in which it does extend the scope of the bill and in such a way as in all probability to impose an added burden on the taxpayers. But I do not think it necessary for me to give these reasons to the House of Commons. In essence this is a financial scheme by which Ave shall be taking in large sums of money from the public of Canada and under which we shall be paying out large sums of money to those whose property we insure, in the event of that property suffering damage. The alteration of that scheme in an important particular, by greatly expanding the number of companies and altering the character of the companies with which the government has power to enter into agreements, is the alteration of what is essentially and soundly considered a financial bill. For that reason I am moving that this message be sent.


NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):

If I interpreted the minister's

remarks correctly, he based his original objection to the Senate amendments on a matter

Succession Duty Act

of principle, namely, that the Senate amendment sought to include within the scope of section 26 such other companies as might satisfy the minister with regard to their financial standing and ability to perform the obligations required of them under such an agreement. He expressly referred to certain provincial companies which, up to the moment at all events, have not yielded to the jurisdiction of the federal authority. That was the basis, as I understood him, upon which he objected to this amendment. Apparently since that time an additional reason has been brought forward, namely, the constitutionality of the amendment proposed by the senate. Of course the government could waive that, if it so desired, by accepting the amendment. I think the minister was on much stronger ground on his first objection. I would prefer to base my opinion on that rather than on the other, although I recognize the validity of much of what he has said.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   WAR RISK INSURANCE
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR COMPENSATION FOR WAR DAMAGE TO PROPERTY-CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS
Permalink

Motion agreed to.


DOMINION SUCCESSION DUTY ACT


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 123, to amend the Dominion Succession Duty Act. Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Vien in the chair. On section 1-Definitions.


NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

The minister had previously introduced a bill which received its second reading on July 22. Last evening he withdrew the bill and reintroduced it in its present form. It would assist the committee if the minister would explain what the changes are in the bill as reintroduced. I have just received a copy of the bill and have not had time to read it. Then I assume we shall take it up section by section.

Topic:   DOMINION SUCCESSION DUTY ACT
Permalink
LIB

James Lorimer Ilsley (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. ILSLEY:

Yes, I can do that. Unfortunately the previous bill was not examined by me in any real sense before it was introduced. I was very busy on the resolutions, and I assumed that the 'bill would follow the *resolutions and that all the real work was done. But when I saw the bill I discovered that there were a number of provisions in it with which I did not agree, and which, as I thought, extended or altered the resolutions.

I have put a lot of work on the bill since, and while I do not expect that it is perfect yet, from my point of view it is much better than it was before.

With regard to section 1, it was designed to provide that grandchildren should not *qualify automatically as children within the

succession duty act, but that there should be a dependency in regard to grandchildren. That should not be the case in regard to children but certainly should be in regard to grandchildren. That is the object of the amendment and is what was designed to be done. But included in the bill as drawn before was the provision that in the province of Quebec the provisions of the paragraph would apply to persons whose support and education had been actually undertaken 'by the deceased, while such person was under the age of twelve years, and any lineal descendant of such person. It was quite obvious that that provision should either be general for all provinces or should not be in the section. I had to decide which of those alternatives was preferable. In our income tax legislation and our succession duty legislation so far we have consistently recognized as children, children by blood or adoption only, and I think it is important to continue that principle. I would not care to depart from it. Therefore I have taken that provision out. The draftsman inserted the provision on the assumption, I believe, that there was no adoption law in the province of Quebec. If there were not, of course some provision would have to be made for that, but it has been brought to my attention that there is an adoption law in the province of Quebec, and if there is such a law there is no justification for making a different provision for one province from that made for another. No difference is made in the Income War Tax Act. The statement in the old explanatory notes that this simply brought the provision into line with those of the Income War Tax Act was a mistake.

Topic:   DOMINION SUCCESSION DUTY ACT
Permalink
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Subsection (b) of section 2 of the present act provides that:

"Child" means any child of the deceased including any person lawfully adopted while under the age of twelve years by the deceased as his child and any lineal descendant of any such child, provided that such child was under eighteen years, of age at the date of the death of the deceased or, at the said date, was dependent upon the deceased for support on account of mental or physical infirmity.

That, I think, follows the more or less general rule, although my recollection of the succession duty acts in the provinces is that a grandchild usually stood in the same position as a child, without any limitation, on the theory that being a lineal descendant of the testator he was entitled to some consideration.

Under the present law any grandchild who is under eighteen years of age is considered to be a child, and any grandchild dependent upon the deceased for support on account of

Succession Duty Act

mental or physical infirmity, irrespective of age, is considered to be a child. As I understand it, the effect of the proposal now is to limit very substantially the definition of a child, and practically to cut out the grandchildren altogether, unless perhaps they are legally adopted.

Topic:   DOMINION SUCCESSION DUTY ACT
Permalink
LIB
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Or dependent; that is to say a grandchild, even under the age of eighteen, now gets no consideration.

Topic:   DOMINION SUCCESSION DUTY ACT
Permalink
LIB

James Lorimer Ilsley (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. ILSLEY:

Unless dependent.

Topic:   DOMINION SUCCESSION DUTY ACT
Permalink
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Unless

dependent.

Topic:   DOMINION SUCCESSION DUTY ACT
Permalink
LIB
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

The mere fact of being a grandchild is not in itself sufficient to bring about any exemption?

Topic:   DOMINION SUCCESSION DUTY ACT
Permalink
LIB
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

That of course is strictly limiting the class of children. Why did the minister decide to impose that strict limitation? Does he think the nation will lose a great deal of money if this change is not made? What other jurisdiction restricts it so far?

Topic:   DOMINION SUCCESSION DUTY ACT
Permalink

July 29, 1942