Rémi PAUL

PAUL, Rémi, Q.C., B.A., LL.L.

Personal Data

Party
Independent
Constituency
Berthier--Maskinongé--delanaudière (Quebec)
Birth Date
June 10, 1921
Deceased Date
December 20, 1982
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rémi_Paul
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=01245d17-8749-4393-a294-c31fbd956d8b&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
lawyer

Parliamentary Career

March 31, 1958 - April 19, 1962
PC
  Berthier--Maskinongé--delanaudière (Quebec)
June 18, 1962 - February 6, 1963
PC
  Berthier--Maskinongé--delanaudière (Quebec)
  • Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole (September 27, 1962 - February 6, 1963)
April 8, 1963 - September 8, 1965
PC
  Berthier--Maskinongé--delanaudière (Quebec)
February 18, 1965 - September 8, 1965
IND
  Berthier--Maskinongé--delanaudière (Quebec)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 3 of 155)


February 17, 1969

Mr. Paul SI. Pierre (Coast Chilcotin):

Mr. Speaker, the two constants of mankind are supposed to be death and taxes. The minister has contrived to get them both in the one bill for our consideration tonight. Estate tax is what we call it, but what we are really dealing with here is a capital gains tax because an estate is capital; it is stored labour. It differs from other capital gains taxes only in the time of its collection. It is collected after the owner's death from his heirs. To my mind this should be one of the most fair forms of capital gains tax, and it is this broad statement that I should like to expand a little later in my remarks.

The bill itself, of course, is not simple. Very few things involving government or law are simple any more. I suppose we might as well face this complexity as one of the burdens of modern society; there is no point in our lamenting the fact. Some of us may look with some regret to days not long ago when there were simple wills. I can recall one in my riding of Coast Chilcotin which was written with a pencil on one sheet of store newspaper. A rancher left his ranch to his sons to be divided equally between them. The instructions on the sheet of paper were very simple. The eldest son was to draw the line dividing the ranch in half and the younger son was to have first choice of the halves. It worked very well.

Another example occurs to me and I recommend it for study to the minister's staff. This was the case of an Indian who had died leaving all his wordly goods to one of two sons. The will was to be decided in this way. These were the instructions. The two sons were to take their best saddle horses and there was to be a race. The son whose horse was last across the finish line would inherit the entire estate. You may be able to anticipate, Mr. Speaker, what happened: the two sons got on their horses but neither man would move from the starting line. Fortunately there was an old Indian in the village and they called on him to break the stalemate. He looked the situation over and gave some brief instructions. The race was won; one horse came in first, one came in last, and the estate was settled according to the will. The minister has such experts on his staff that I am not going to tell him what the solution was,

except that the old Indian solved the problem with two words. He was not a politician but a man very brief in speech.

In this bill as first presented there were provisions with which I strongly disagreed. The bill, in my opinion, did not reflect some of the realities of life that affect small businesses-farms, ranches, to name a few. I noticed that many of us made complaints about the bill. As a matter of fact, the other day the minister said that slightly more than 100 complaints from government members had been received, and as I recall it the opposition parties also contributed eight. So, members on all sides of the house were concerned about the bill. Speaking for myself and for several others, there were three points to which we took strong exception. One of these concerned the sudden burden placed upon small estates closely held, of which ranches and farms are a typical example. The sudden impact of even moderate estate taxes could be very damaging to such holdings.

It is true that even under the present act it is possible to arrange time payments. The minister says that only about 40 people in the last decade asked for such arrangements to be made and this makes me very doubtful that many people were aware of this provision. In any event, time payments should have been made a matter of right for estates of this nature, which are closely held and which may find it simply impossible to raise estate taxes quickly. The minister has now seen fit to change this section of the act and a five year period in which to make six payments is now to be permitted as a matter of right under the revised bill.

There was another objectionable feature to the minds of many of us, and it was this: Since there are major differences between this new estate tax and the present one, a great many people are going to have to rewrite their wills in order to adapt them to the new legislation. I congratulate the minister for bringing in the changes. They will permit executors, after August 31 next, to elect whether they wish to pay estate taxes under the new or old acts.

[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)

The third complaint many hon. members raised was that, in its original form, the bill would have imposed estate taxes on all estates over $20,000. The philosophy behind this part of the measure escapes me. We are told that estate taxes have two purposes, to

February 17. 1969 COMMONS

raise money for the government and to prevent the pyramiding of family wealth from generation to generation. That is all very fine, but how an estate worth $21,000, by any stretch of the imagination represents the foundation of a family's dynastic fortune, escapes me. I should be surprised if the money the government collects from estates of between $25,000 and $35,000 equals the amount spent on collection.

I commend the minister for changing his mind and for introducing a floor of $50,000, below which no estate will be taxed. I wish I could be satisfied with the $50,000 floor, but I cannot be. For many years the basic exemption level has been $50,000. For several years now we have been suffering from an inflation which has eroded the value of our dollar. This legislation ought to recognize that inflation has greatly diminished the value of our dollar. In large part, the dollar has lost its value because many levels of government for many years have indulged in irresponsible spending policies.

Topic:   INCOME TAX ACT AND ESTATE TAX ACT
Full View Permalink

December 21, 1967

Mr. Prud'homme:

Would the hon. member allow me to ask him a question? Could he tell us the name of the person sent to Europe to interview a famous Frenchman when we already had one interviewer in Europe?

Topic:   BROADCASTING
Subtopic:   IMPLEMENTATION OF CANADIAN POLICY
Full View Permalink

November 22, 1967

Mr. Prud'homme:

The old army uniforms.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING DEATH SENTENCE AND LIFE IMPRISONMENT
Full View Permalink

April 19, 1967

Mr. Prud'homme:

That is the name I have heard many times since this debate started.

[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)

However, I cannot understand those relentless attacks against a man by the name of Lee.

I have heard it said of Mr. David McIntosh of the Canadian Press that he is biased, superficial, and does not report objectively to the Canadian population. He may be biased yet many editorials are written on his reports, columns are based on them and cartoons are drawn. I do not wish it to be thought that when I speak I reflect the words of Mr. Lee, just as I do not think when the hon. member for Athabasca speaks he reflects the hidden words of Mr. McIntosh. I do not care to behave in that way. I shall now continue:

Modern-and future-military operations call for hard, business-like methods. The scientist, the engineer and the logistics expert will be allimportant.

That might have concerned the hon. member for Brandon-

Topic:   AMALGAMATION OF NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE
Full View Permalink

April 19, 1967

Mr. Prud'homme:

Mr. Diefenbaker had to rush to overshadow him by rising as a giant on the international scene.

April 19, 1967

National Defence Act Amendment

You remember Mr. Chairman, his dream, his vision of a great commonwealth-

To go on:

Unfortunately, his balloon sprung a leak over Asia, notably in Pakistan where misery, riots and anti-parliamentary governments showed him a thing or two on the hazards of a common policy-

But there was also Mr. Howe, this satyr of trade and finance who had left his indelible imprint on the direction of our economy.

Mr. Diefenbaker decided that any trace of that man had to disappear, and he hurriedly announced a drastic 15 per cent reorientation of our international trade. In terms of political economy, it was very odd; but Great Britain made as though it played the game by proposing a free-trade system between our two countries.

[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)

There was also Mr. St. Laurent, one of the main architects of NATO and, who, in another field, was responsible for the repatriation of part of the Canadian constitution by amendment No. 2 of 1949. To outdo as fast as possible the achievements of the former liberal leader on strategic matters, Mr. Diefenbaker hurriedly led us into certain commitments towards NORAD with such an ill-considered zeal that our country finds itself in a state of military dependence which brings it back 100 years. And now, in the constitutional field, Mr. Diefenbaker announces that he will repatriate-

I spare you the rest, Mr. Chairman, but I wind up Mr. Trudeau's article, and I have many others anyway. Therefore I quote:

In all those instances, and in many others, those were generous measures but-one must regret it- they remained for the most part, just good intentions. They were balloons filled with hot air and pushed by the wind which invariably crashed with their operator before going too far.

Mr. Diefenbaker's good intentions have failed so often that we are justified to find in them the very nature of his style-

And he has not changed, as you will note.

-now, as Buffon said, the style is the man himself. Thinking that inspiration does for reflection, he lacks the patience or the modesty to hurry slowly, he does not find it necessary to gather around him men able to establish the Canadian policy on deeprooted reason.

I will spare the house this quotation and go on.

Topic:   DIEFENBAKER UP IN A BALLOON
Full View Permalink