June 17, 1952

PC

James MacKerras Macdonnell

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):

Let me interrupt you for a change, and I shall continue what I am saying. What the leader of the opposition suggested tonight was not taking away anything from anybody. Let me digress a moment to speak again to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and tell him that when he suggested going back to the time of the Rowell-Sirois report he neglected to take into consideration that many things have happened since then. There have been family allowances, old age pensions and so on, and nobody suggests going back on them. I suggest to him he is, to some extent, setting up a straw man.

I return now-

Topic:   TAX AGREEMENTS
Subtopic:   COMPENSATION TO PROVINCES IN LIEU OF CERTAIN TAXES
Permalink
LIB

Andrew Wesley Stuart

Liberal

Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):

May I ask one

question?

Topic:   TAX AGREEMENTS
Subtopic:   COMPENSATION TO PROVINCES IN LIEU OF CERTAIN TAXES
Permalink
PC

James MacKerras Macdonnell

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):

Let me finish. The point I want to make clear is

Tax Agreements with Provinces that the leader of the opposition did not suggest this legislation should not be passed. He suggested that there was a problem to be considered. The premiers who were here in 1946, particularly the premier of Nova Scotia and others, all suggested there was a problem to be considered. Of course it is a difficult problem; we all recognize it. It is true, as the hon. member implied, that if Ontario and Quebec tried to erect a wall around themselves and say what we have we hold, that would be very unfair. As a matter of fact what has happened since in the way of federal taxation, old age pensions and family allowances, has vastly changed the position because the dominion now takes care of those services.

I say, therefore, that what the member said tonight was grossly unfair. Furthermore we affirm what the documents which report the dominion-provincial conferences showed years ago, and he will find it most explicitly stated there, that there was recognition of the fact there had to be a sharing of the burden right across the country. Let me say this finally. There has been a great deal of most important support from men who have thought the thing through, including the premier of Nova Scotia and other premiers for the view that just as soon as you take away taxing powers and keep them away from the provinces in normal times, you create difficulties. It was with that in mind, and not with the intention of depriving anyone of anything, that the leader of the opposition spoke tonight.

Topic:   TAX AGREEMENTS
Subtopic:   COMPENSATION TO PROVINCES IN LIEU OF CERTAIN TAXES
Permalink
LIB

Andrew Wesley Stuart

Liberal

Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):

May I ask my

question now?

Topic:   TAX AGREEMENTS
Subtopic:   COMPENSATION TO PROVINCES IN LIEU OF CERTAIN TAXES
Permalink
PC

James MacKerras Macdonnell

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):

Yes.

Topic:   TAX AGREEMENTS
Subtopic:   COMPENSATION TO PROVINCES IN LIEU OF CERTAIN TAXES
Permalink
LIB

Andrew Wesley Stuart

Liberal

Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):

The hon. member has said the leader of the opposition was in favour of these subsidy payments. Did he take that stand when he appeared at the dominion-provincial conference as premier of Ontario?

Topic:   TAX AGREEMENTS
Subtopic:   COMPENSATION TO PROVINCES IN LIEU OF CERTAIN TAXES
Permalink
PC

George Alexander Drew (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Drew:

Let me answer that question. The hon. member is the victim of the propaganda which he has been assisting in spreading.

Topic:   TAX AGREEMENTS
Subtopic:   COMPENSATION TO PROVINCES IN LIEU OF CERTAIN TAXES
Permalink
LIB

Andrew Wesley Stuart

Liberal

Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):

No. I am the victim of propaganda the other way, namely the propaganda of the speech of the leader of the opposition.

Topic:   TAX AGREEMENTS
Subtopic:   COMPENSATION TO PROVINCES IN LIEU OF CERTAIN TAXES
Permalink
PC

George Alexander Drew (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Drew:

I would commend to the hon. member a little diligence in reading the record of what actually took place. If he would spend a little time reading it he would find, with regard to our position, that we made it clear that we wanted the adjustment of payments to be made in a manner that recognized the advantages of the province of

3370 HOUSE OF

Tax Agreements with Provinces Ontario and the other provinces that had advantages. II he will look at the official record of the dominion-provincial conference which started in 1945 he will find that, as reported at page 519, I said this:

Yes, we receive benefits from outside of Ontario; and those benefits were admitted, were stated in our brief presented last January; and may I remind everyone at this conference that Ontario has said, and said very emphatically, that it recognizes certain advantages it possesses, and that it is not only willing, it is insistent upon combining with the other provinces of Canada to share any advantages it possesses.

I repeat that statement today.

Topic:   TAX AGREEMENTS
Subtopic:   COMPENSATION TO PROVINCES IN LIEU OF CERTAIN TAXES
Permalink
PC

Agar Rodney Adamson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Adamson:

Mr. Chairman, I merely want to make one suggestion to the minister with regard to the leasing of tax fields. It has reference to succession duties. The statement made in this committee tonight with regard to the distribution of wealth being a good thing is one with which I am in agreement. But may I suggest that there is no other tax which tends so greatly to concentrate wealth and to perpetuate monopolies and large corporations as does the succession duties tax. Many small companies, particularly family companies, on the death of the owner or a large shareholder, in order to raise money for the succession duties have to sell the assets of the concern either on the public market or to some larger concern. By this procedure more and more of the productivity of the country is being forced into large corporations.

Until the war succession duties were solely a provincial levy; but as an emergency measure for war purposes the federal government invaded the succession duty field. If the federal government really want to get agreements with the provinces, I suggest that they should be willing to relinquish this taxing field. It raises little money. Particularly in the central provinces but also in British Columbia and Alberta, there are at the present time double succession duties. Because of this fact, instead of acting to distribute the wealth or to keep the small operator continuously in operation you are, through the effect of the succession duties, concentrating the productive output of this country into fewer and fewer hands. I think that is a wrong procedure. I think that at least a conference with the finance ministers of the provinces could be held to advantage in order to find out whether the federal authority could not profitably relinquish the succession duty field.

May I now say a word with regard to what was said by the hon. member for Charlotte. Assuming that a part of the profits of business in the maritime provinces leaves those provinces, we find that one of the worst drains those provinces have to suffer

is through the excise tax and the sales tax. Every dollar of business done in those provinces has to pay the tax which goes to the central government. In effect-and this is one of the evils of the sales tax-you are putting a centralizing tax on business done in the maritimes; the central government is taxing them on the business so done. There is no drain which any manufacturer or any business in the central provinces puts on the maritimes that can possibly be compared to the drain of the sales tax and the excise tax. Those are inescapable facts.

I wish to make my plea that, as far as possible, the tax structure of this country be simplified and that where there is double taxation, as there is at the present time in the field of succession duties, the first job of governments at all levels is to see to it that such double taxation, wherever it exists, be eliminated.

Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.

Mr. Abboit thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 347, to authorize the government of Canada to enter into agreements with the governments of the provinces pursuant to which, in return for compensation, the provinces agree to refrain from levying certain taxes for a limited period.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Topic:   TAX AGREEMENTS
Subtopic:   COMPENSATION TO PROVINCES IN LIEU OF CERTAIN TAXES
Permalink

CRIMINAL CODE

AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO RACE MEETINGS

LIB

Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Hon. Alphonse Fournier (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved

the second reading of Bill No. 309, to amend the Criminal Code (race meetings).

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO RACE MEETINGS
Permalink
PC

Agar Rodney Adamson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Adamson:

What is the principle of this bill?

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO RACE MEETINGS
Permalink
LIB

Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

Two amendments are proposed in this bill. The first is to subsection 4 of section 235 of the Criminal Code, and involves a change in the percentage which may be retained by the racing associations from the total amount of money wagered on each race, the change being from a graduated scale of percentages, depending on the amount wagered on each race, to a fixed percentage. In the old section the percentages varied from 9 per cent to 5 per cent, according to the amount. This amendment would fix the rate at 9 per cent.

The second amendment is to clarify the method of dealing with the odd cents which are retained at the present time by the association, and to make it clear that any remainder, as well as any odd cents, that may occur in

the quotient when pools are calculated may be retained by the association. I am told that everybody agrees with this change and it is for the good of the community.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO RACE MEETINGS
Permalink
PC

Agar Rodney Adamson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Adamson:

Does it assist the $2 fellow

to get a better chance?

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO RACE MEETINGS
Permalink

Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair. On section 1.


CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

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

Mr. Knowles:

The minister who is sponsoring this bill said that everybody agreed to it.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO RACE MEETINGS
Permalink
LIB

Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

I had not consulted my hon. friend.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO RACE MEETINGS
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

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

Mr. Knowles:

Whom does he mean by "everybody"? Seriously, who is asking for it? Who are the people who have agreed to it and why has this limit been raised? Previously when the amounts involved were higher the percentage that could be retained was less. It was down as low as 5 per cent in some instances. Why has the amount that can be retained by the association been increased? I have no doubt that the association agrees with it. What about the other parties?

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO RACE MEETINGS
Permalink

June 17, 1952