1924-04-16

PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 60, to incorporate The Life Underwriters' Association of Canada.-Mr. McKay.

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to announce that on Thursday the 24th day of April-when the House resumes its sittings- at 2.15 in the afternoon the memorial tablet in the lobby of the House of Commons to the late Bowman B. Law, M.P., will be unveiled. As hon. members are aware, Mr. Law met his death in the fire which destroyed the parliament buildings on February 3, 1916.



REPORT PRESENTED

[Stage Direction]
First report of the select standing committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines- Mr. Cahill.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that the name of Miss Macphail be added to the special committee on Soldiers' Pensions Insurance and Re-establishment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Questions

William Lyon Mackenzie King: In accordance with the notice I gave last night, I beg to move that the resolution adopted on the 26th March last in respect to the adjournment from Wednesday the 16th to Tuesday the 22nd of April be rescinded, and that it be resolved that when the House adjourns this day it do stand adjourned until Thursday the 24th instant.


Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent. Motion agreed to.



AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) :: I beg to move that the Auditor General's report for the year ending March 31st, 1923, and the public accounts of Canada for the year ending March 31st, 1923, be referred to the select standing committee on Public Accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA Mr. PRESTON ELLIOTT (Dundas):	I
desire to present a petition signed by a number of people in the county of Dundas in favour of church union; also a petition signed by the members and adherents of St. Paul's Church, Winchester, in opposition to church union; also a petition signed by members and adherents of Knox Presbyterian Church, Iroquois, in opposition to church union.
Mr. J. P. RANKIN (North Perth):: I desire to present a petition from members of the Session of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Stratford, in favour of church union.



THE HOME BANK

Mr. A. L. HODGINS (East Middlesex):: I uosire to present a petition from 1,046 depositors of the Home Bank praying that they be indemnified for their losses.


Mr. JOHN MORRISON (Weyburn):: I
beg to present a petition signed by 200 depositors of the Home Bank in Weyburn constituency praying that this government take whatever action is necessary to ensure depositors full payment of their deposits.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered1 orally are indicated by an asterisk).
YUKON-LIQUOR IMPORTS Mr. BLACK (Yukon):
1.	Does the government of the United States admit the right of subjects of His Britannic Majesty to import liquors through the three-mile limit off the coast of Alaska into and up the Yukon river into
Canada in British ships, under section 26 of the treaty of Washington ratified on the 17th June; 1891, which provides that:	"The navigation of the rivers Yukon,
Porcupine and Stikine, ascending and descending from, to and into the sea, shall forever remain free and open for the purposes of commerce to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty and to the'citizens of the United States, subject to any laws and regulations of either country within its own territory, not inconsistent with such privilege of free navigation"?
2.	If the government has not ascertained what interpretation the United States puts on said clause of said treaty will the government ascertain the same at the earliest possible date?

Mr. COOTE:: With regard to the bond for 1321,000 given by the contractors for completion of two ships at Prince Rupert, referred to on page 3514 Revised Hansard 1922:
1.	What was the name of the bonding company.
2.	Has the bonding company paid this amount to the government ?
3.	If so, on what date was payment received by the
government.	-	-	,


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	The London Guarantee & Accident Company, Ltd. Head office for Canada, Toronto.
2.	No, Negotiations for settlement now proceeding.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-GRADES
Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	Is Parry Sound on the main line of Canadian National Railways, Winnipeg to Toronto?
2.	What are the grades on the Canadian National. Railways north and south from Parry Sound and near that point?
Questions

3.	Is it necessary to use additional power to aid trains over such grades?
4.	Have proposals been made to reduce or overcome such grades? If so, when?
5.	Have surveys been made or plans prepared to overcome or reduce such grades?
6.	If so, why has the necessary work not been proceeded with?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING (for the Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	Yes.
2.	1 per cent.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes, in 1922.
5.	Yes.
6.	Still being considered from an economical standpoint.
HIGH COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE Mr. BENOIT:
1.	What has been the cost to Canada of the Canadian High Commissioner's office at London, for the years 1921, 1922, 1923 respectively?
2.	What was the nature of the work accomplished during such years?
3.	What is the yearly salary of the High Commissioner?
4.	What allowance is granted in lieu of residence?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 
Mr. BENOIT:: 1.	What has been the cost to Canada of the League of Nations, since its inception?
2.	What advantage have the people of Canada derived ?
3.	If such advantages do not justify expectations and expenditures incurred, does not the government think that it is expedient to take leave of said League of Nations?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	$818,355.76, made up as follows: Secretariat, $765,045.81; Cost of Canadian delegations (4), $53,309.95.
2.	Different opinions are entertained as to extent of advantages.
3.	Answered by answer to No. 2.


EXPORT OF AUTOMOBILES THROUGH NEW LONDON
Hon. Mr. BAXTER:: 1.	During the year 1923, how many automobiles were carried to New London, Connecticut, for export shipment, and during what months were they so carried?
2.	What was the point of origin of such automobiles and by what routes were they carried to New London?
IMr. Arthurs.]
3.	Who were the shippers of said automobiles and what routing instructions did they give with respect to said automobiles?
4.	What was the overseas destination of said automobiles ?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: I am told by officers of the department that this question can hardly be answered. To answer Nos. 2 and 3 would require some time and a great deal of work; it would be necessary to refer to every bill of lading and every entry that was made. The question might better stand as an order for return, because the answer would be a very long one.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: There is no long answer required; either an answer can be given or not. I suggest that the question stand until the member who put it on the order paper is here.


Jacques Bureau: All right.
Question stands.


LA CROIX
Mr. JACOBS:: 1.	Has the Postmaster General's department received complaints objecting to the use of His Majesty's mails against a newspaper in Montreal called La Croix?
2.	If so, what was the nature of the complaints?
3.	Was the Justice department asked to pass upon the complaints made against La Croix?
4.	What did the Justice department advise in the matter?
5.	Does the Postmaster General's department intend to permit such newspaper the use of His Majesty's mails?


Hon. Mr. SINCLAIR (Queens, for the Postmaster General):: 1.	Yes.
2.	That the paper was directing attacks against Jewish citizens.
3.	Yes.
4 and 5. That the paper was not of such a character as to disclose an intent, or to have a direct tendency, to excite His Majesty's subjects to a violation of the laws or to offend against public order.
LIEUT.-COLONEL BROTHERS Mr. JACOBS:
1.	Was Lt.-Col. Brothers attached to the Canadian delegation to the recent Imperial Conference and in what capacity?
2.	If so, what qualifications did he possess for such position?
3.	What stipend did he receive for his services, if any?
4.	Was the gentleman previous to his selection as above, on the staff of the Montreal Herald?
5.	Did Lt.-Col. Brothers give any value to the delegation for the money paid him and, if so, what?


Right Hon. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	No.
2,	3 and 5. Answered by the answer to No. 1.
4.	No official information.

Questions


QUEBEC IMMIGRATION RESTAURANT
Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: 1.	Has the Department of Immigration asked for tenders for the immigration canteen and restaurant, at the port of Quebec?
2.	If so, how many tenders were received and from
whom?	,
3.	On what date had the tenders to be m the hands of the Department of Immigration, according to notice?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Ten:	J. L. Proulx, J. R. H. Byrne, Jos.
Clark, G. Rosseau, John J. Burrill, Eugene Lamo'ntagne, Thos. Grenier, F. Kirouac and Sons, Alex. A. Boivin, and Messrs. J. E. Tes-sier and A. Arseneault.
3.	March 24th.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: 1.	Did Mr. P. W. Dugal, of Quebec, tender according to specifications and requirements of the Department of Immigration, for the restaurant and canteen, at Quebec ?
2.	Was said Dugal engaged by the department to take charge of the restaurant and canteen and, if so, on what conditions, was there a contract made, when was it signed, what is the salary or commission to be paid and for how long is the contract?
3.	By whom was Mr. Dugal recommended?
4.	Did he put in an application to obtain the said position, or was it offered to him, and if so, by whom?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	No.
2.	Yes, at $4,000 for the season, Mr. Dugal to have complete charge of the purchasing of supplies and also the engagement of the necessary staff. Contract signed April 10 to cover season of navigation.
3.	Not recommended but selected on account of ability as restaurant caterer.
4.	No; position tendered Mr. Dugal by deputy minister of department.


EMPIRE SETTLEMENT SCHEME
Mr. RYCKMAN:: 1.	What is the substance of the arrangement entered into by the Canadian National Railways with the Empire Settlement Board?
2.	What is the extent of the financial obligations undertaken by the railway?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
PETITION FROM BRENTON A. MACNAB
Hon. Mr. BAXTER:: 1.	Has the government received a petition or communication addressed to His Excellency the Governor General in Council, subscribed by Brenton A. Macnab of Montreal, dated May 17, 1923?
2.	If so, what is requested by said petition or communication?
3.	Has receipt of said petition been acknowledged to the said Brenton A. Macnab?
4.	What action, if any, has been taken upon the said petition, and if no action has been taken, why not?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes.	.
2,	3 and 4. The petition alleged complaints against the Prime Minister and the Attorney General of Quebec, but no action has been taken because, among other reasons, these charges are not within the authority of this government to inquire into and determine.


RURAL EGG CIRCLES
Mr. SENN:: 1.	Is the Department of Agriculture helping to establish egg circles in rural districts either by bonuses or by sending out persons to assist in organization of the same?
2.	Has the department issued any regulations or advice or instructions regarding the same?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	During the past twelve years the department has encouraged the co-operative marketing of eggs in many districts throughout Canada where the conditions as regards quantity and facilities for marketing would permit, and where there has been an expressed desire on the part of the people for assistance along this line. The assistance given has been in the form of public addresses and personal advice and instruction on the part of departmental officers. In no instances have there been any direct expenditure of money in the form of bonuses or otherwise to encourage this work.
2.	Leaflets containing instructions in connection with the organization of egg circles have been published by the department.


VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	What are the names of the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners ?
2.	What is the official title of each?
3.	What is the salary of each?
Questions

4.	Do -.any .of the said commissioners hold any public office,, or office other than that of commissioner?
5.	If so, is appointment to such office, under or Within the gift of said Harbour Commissioners?
6.	What is : the- nature of each of such offices ?
7.	By whom are each of such offices held and at what salary?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Guy H. Kirkpatrick, President; Samuel Prenter, Commissioner; R. E. Beattie, Commissioner.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	President, $6,000; commissioners, $4,000 each.
4.	Yes, one.
5.	Yes.
6.	General ' superintendent of the port.
7.	R. E. Beattie, $4,000.


ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY-UNITED STATES ENGINEERS
Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: 1.	What engineers have been appointed by United States to consider the St. Lawrence navigation and power possibilities?
2.	Are these engineers connected with the United States army organizations?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to recommend any engineers now connected with the Canadian Defence department to represent Canada?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Colonel William P. Wooten, Corps of Engineers, United States army, was appointed in January, 1920, as the American member of the Joint Engineering Board to consider this question. It has been agreed, however, that the board should be enlarged so as to include two additional . United States engineers. No notification has so far been received of these additional appointments.
2.	Colonel Wooten is connected with the Corps of Engineers of the United States army.
3.	Under consideration.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-BRANCH LINES
Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: 1.	What will be the cost of the construction of the new railway lines or branch lines to be voted by the House ?
2.	What is the amount voted for the construction of proposed lines or branch lines in the province of Quebec ?
3. What is the total mileage of said proposed lines or branch lints for the whole Dominion, and also for the province of Quebec?
3.	Total mileage-965 miles. Mileage for Quebec, 31 miles.
MEMBERS' STENOGRAPHERS Mr. SEGUIN:
![DOT] What is the total number of lady typewriters acting as secretary and in the employ of the Speaker and members of the House of Commons?
2.	What is the name and salary of each, respectively?
3.	How many have a knowledge of both languages?
4.	Why is there a difference in their salaries?
5.	Are the services of those having a knowledge of both languages better paid? If not, why?
8. Are there amongst them married women?
7.	If so, are there any whose husbands are also in the employ of the government?
' 8. Are any of the mentioned employees absent and in receipt of salary? If so, what are their names?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1. Fifty-six, two of whom are typewriters and stenographers in the Speaker's office ir lieu of secretary, which office has not been filled for purposes of economy.
* 2. A. E. Anderson, $4; M. Anderson, $4; D. Barbes, $6; M. F. Berube, $4; H. Brankin, $4; M. Brennan, $3.50; C. L. Cameron. $4; G. Charron, $4; A. Christie, $4; B. Cook, $4;
A.	Culross, $4; J. Dechamps, $4; M. R. Dickner, $4; J. Donaldson, $4; I. Fellows, $4;
B.	H. Foster, $4; M. J. Gagnon, $4; M. E. Garceau, $4; G. Garrow, $4; O. Graham, $4; M. Gravelle, $4; E. Guerin. $6.50; F. Halliday, $4; Y. Kipp, $5; M. A. Lafond. $4; M. R. Laperriere, $4; K. Leaver, $4; E. Leclerc, $4;
J. Lefebvre, $4; M. Lefebvre, $3; B. Locke, $4; M. E. McEwan, $5; R. MeGuigan, $4;
J. McKinley, $3.50; N. MacBean, $4; M. H. Macdonald, $4; A. MacRitchie, $4; M. Mar-cotte, $4; I. Marriotte, $4; M. Miller, $4; R. Miller, $4; K. O'Connor, $4; A. Ouimet, $4; G. Quin, $4; B. Reynolds, $4; Y.' Robichaud, $3.50; G. Sharp, $4; A. Sinclair, $4; K. Soper, $3.50; D. Stewart, $4; M.' Sullivan, $4; J. K. Taylor, $4; C. Theobald, $4, M. G. Webster, $3.50; A. L. IVeilbrenner, $4; A. Wright, $4 per day.
3.	Twenty.
4.	Graded according to competence and nature of duties.
5.	No: There is no such distinction in any of the governmental departments.
6.	Three.
7.	One.
8.	One, who is absent through illness, Mrs. Barbes.


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING (for the Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	Approximate estimate of cost-$28 311300.	'
2.	No vote yet made.

CABINET MINISTERS' MOTOR CARS Mr. GRIMMER:	.
1.	What department furnishes drivers for cabinet ministers' motor cars?
2.	To what account are their salaries charged?
3.	To what account are repairs charged?

Unopposed Motions


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I
might answer this question verbally. There is no department that furnishes drivers for cabinet ministers' motor ears. The motor cars are arranged for by each department, and the accounts pertaining to them, both for salaries and for repairs, are paid for by each department.


TAX ON AERATED BEVERAGES
Mr. GRIMMER:: 1.	What percentage of the bottlers in each province have paid the gallonage tax on aerated beverages in full?
2.	Is it * the intention of the government to compel payment of these taxes by the delinquents?
3.	If not, is it the intention of the government to reimburse those bottlers who have already paid the tax?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	Information not available until completion of audit of sales of beverages subject to the tax.
2.	Yes. Action has been taken to compel payment.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


IMPORTS OF BABY CHICKS
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	How many baby chicks were imported from the United States during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1924?
2.	Upon what number of baby chicks was duty paid and what amount was received from this source?
3.	What number of baby chicks were imported from the United States during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1924, upon which there was no duty collected?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	and 3. Imports of baby chicks from the United States free of duty,-fiscal year ended March, 1924: Number, 467,154; value, $78486.
2.	Imports of baby chicks, dutiable, are not separately recorded for statistics.


INCUBATOR IMPORTS
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	How many incubators have been imported from
the United States during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1924, of the following capacities:	(a) 100 egg;
(b) 101 to 200; (c) 201 to 300; (d) 301 to 600; (e) 601 to 1,200; (f) 1,200 to 2,440; (g) 2,440 to 7,400; (h) 7,401 to 10,000; and (i) 10,000 capacity and over?
2.	What amount of duty was collected from each of the above-mentioned classes?
3.	What were the imports from Great Britain of incubators of the above classes for the same period, and what amount of duty was collected on same?


Jacques Bureau: 1 and 2. Fiscal year ended March, 1924: Incubators and brooders imported from the United States: Number, 6,861; value, $148,638; customs duty collected, $22,295.70.
There are no statistical records showing different sizes of incubators imported.
3.	Incubators and brooders imported from Great Britain:	Number, 2; value, $81;
customs duty collected, $8.10.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
John Morrison: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents in the possession of the government or any department of the government, between the government and the government of Saskatchewan on the question of licenses for export liquor houses.


KENTVILLE AND NAPPAN EXPERIMENTAL FARMS
Mr. BOWEN:: For a copy of all correspondence, petitions and other idocuments between the Department of Agriculture and the pure-bred stock breeders of Nova Scotia, with regard to the experimental farms at Kentville and Nappan in the province of Nova Scotia.


APPLICATION OF DUMPING CLAUSE
Mr. EVANS:: For a return showing the number of importations to which the dumping clause of the tariff has been applied during the fiscal year 1923-24, the class of goods to which it has been applied, the reasons therefor and the amount of duty collected.


PROPOSED INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS
Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Chambly and Vercheres) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act by making the following changes: (1) To increase from $300 to $500 the exemption granted for every child;	(2) to differentiate in the
amount of taxation against invested capital and that placed against revenue derived from salaries or wages; (3) to grant to pepple married under the community regime an exemption equal to that which is granted to people married under the regime of separate maintenance.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the matter involved in the resolution that stands in my name has been brought before this House by myself on many occasions, with more or less success. It i3 evident that in bringing forward arguments in favour of the resolution I shall have to repeat myself, and I therefore crave the indulgence and the attention of hon. members for a few moments.
As hon. members will notice, the resolution is threefold in its purpose, but all relating to the same subject, the income tax. The first object sought is to increase from $300 to $500 the exemption granted for each child; the second is to differentiate in the amount of taxation against invested capital and that placed against revenue derived from salaries
Income Tax Amendments

or wages; and the third is to grant to people married under the community regime an exemption equal to that which is granted to people married under the regime of separate maintenance. My task will be much easier this afternoon, because the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) has given notice of a resolution, which is now on the order paper, embodying an increase in thje epempition for children from $300 to $500, thus giving effect to the wish of the House as expressed last year. I shall therefore refrain from making any remarks on that first point, reserving any observations I may find it necessary to make for the time when the resolution will be brought down. But I wish to congratulate the government heartily upon bringing in this legislation, which I with many other members have been advocating for many years. Under the old administration, which seemed to be in favour of birth control, I advocated on many occasions that this increased Exemption be granted, but without success. I remember the first time I introduced a similar resolution, in 1919 or 1921, I think it was. That resolution was opposed and defeated at the request of the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), and those members who were in the House at the time will recollect the incongruous and uncouth remarks and objections that were made by some hon. members. They may remember, for instance, that the then hon. member for Peterborough, Mr. Burnham, opposed the resolution because, he said, it would be an encouragement to animal instincts. The then hon. member for Fron-tenac, Doctor Edwards, opposed the resolution because, he said, it was a disguised way of allowing the province of Quebec to avoid paying their share of the taxes. However, I am glad to say that the first year this government were in power they increased the exemption from $200 to $300, and now this year there is a resolution on the order paper in the name of the Acting Minister of Finance for increasing it from $300 to $500. I repeat again, the government are to be congratulated on this step, which I am sure will win the gratitude of all those who believe that the best citizen, after all, is the Canadian bom, and the best immigrant the one that God himself brings into your home.
There remain, Mr. Speaker, two other points in my resolution, which I will discuss very briefly. The first one is a ruling by the Department of Taxation regarding the tax imposed on persons married under the regime of community of property. I may explain to hon. members who may not be entirely 
familiar with the civil law of Quebec that in the province of Quebec there are two marriage regimes. There is the regime of community of property, and there is the regime of separation of property. If people are married without a contract they fall under the first regime, that of community of property. The properties and the moneys belonging to the wife or to the husband before marriage and the properties or monies that they may receive after marriage form one whole. When they are married under the regime of separation of property, the husband and the wife each keeps the property or moneys, they may have had before entering into marriage and any moneys or property they may inherit after they ara married.


Mr. CARROLL:: Does the regime of community of property apply to the Mennonite settlement in the West, where the property is held by trustees?


Joseph Archambault: I could not tell
my hon. friend. It might be so. But what I am discussing is a ruling that has been made by the department regarding the regime of community of property as we have it in Quebec. The same ruling may have been made with regard to the Mennonites in the West. At all events, under the ruling of the department, if the people are married separate as to property they enjoy the benefit of two exemptions, and if they are married under the regime of community of property they enjoy the benefit of only one exemption. Let me give an example. Suppose a married couple has an income of $6,000, the husband earning a salary of $3,000, and the wife possessing an income of $3,000, derived from inheritance or otherwise. If they are married under the regime of separation as to property the husband gets his exemption of $2,000, and the wife gets her exemption of $2,000. Therefore, out of that sum of $6,000, $4,000 is exempted, and they pay a tax on only $2,000, the 4 per cent normal tax, making $80. But if the same parties are married under the regime of community property, under what I might call the absurd ruling of the department they are given only one exemption, that is, only $2,000 is exempted, and they pay $160 on the other $4,000; that is just double the amount paid by those who are married under the regime of separation as to property. I pointed out this ruling last year, Mr. Speaker, and I thought it would be changed. The injustice is apparent, and I hope that when the Acting Minister of Finance brings in his amendments to the Income Tax Act he will have this ruling changed. I trust that he will give orders to

Income Tax Amendments
the effect that the people who are married under the regime of community as to property will get the same benefit of two exemptions enjoyed by those who are married under the regime of separation as to property.
My second point, Mr. Speaker, is regarding the differentiation that should be made in income tax from earned and unearned income.
I consider earned income to be, for instance, profits of office, pensions, income derived from farms, or from professions, or from trade. In order to be more explicit I shall read to the House the definition in the English law of earned income:
The expression "earned income" means-
Profits of office.-Any income arising in respect of any office or employment of profit held by the individual.
Pensions.-Income in respect of any pension, superannuation, or other allowance, deferred pay, or compensation for loss of office given in respect of the past services of the individual or of the husband or parent of the individual in any office or employment of profit, whether the individual or husband or parent of the individual shall have contributed to such pension, superannuation allowance, or deferred pay or not.
Property emoluments of office.-Any income from any property which is attached to or forms part of the emoluments of any office or employment of profit held by the individual.
Any income derived from farms.
Any income derived from a profession or trade.
All other income, outside of that just defined, is unearned income. In my opinion this differentiation is most commendable. The man who derives his money from his daily toil, from his daily work, should not be asked to pay as much tax as the one who derives an income from money invested or money inherited. The salary of a man is his capital. When a man, earning $5,000 a year, for instance, dies, his family is practically left with nothing because he has been forced to spend the most of his salary during his lifetime to provide for his wife and children. On the other hand, when a man who derives an income of $5,000 from money invested dies, his wife and family still have the $5,000 income, plus the capital probably of $100,000 from which the income is taken.


Arthur Meighen: Take the case of a farmer retired on the money he has worked for and earned, and his income is, say, $1,500 a year, would my hon. friend consider that income as not earned?


Joseph Archambault: I expected the
remark from the right hon. gentleman. It is not a new one, it was made last year. First of all the right hon. gentleman should be aware that the farmer who derives an income of $1,500 does not pay one cent of income tax if he is married. He only has to
pay when his income is above $2,000. That is the law.


Arthur Meighen: That is the case, of
course, but it does not affect the principle. It is not the case in the city income taxation.


Joseph Archambault: It is the federal
income tax that I am discussing. We might fix another day to discuss municipal and provincial taxation if it be deemed necessary.


Arthur Meighen: But it illustrates the
principle.


Joseph Archambault: What my right
hon. friend probably wishes to point out is this, that it would not be fair to tax a farmer or a labourer who has accumulated a certain amount of money and derives an income from it more than a man who earns a very high salary. I think my right hon. friend is right in his contention. I was going to explain that my idea was to create three rates of income taxation in order that the state should derive practically the same income. At the present time the normal tax is 4 per cent. Now, I submit that a fair adjustment of the income tax would be the following:
Income derived from inheritance money I would tax at 6 per cent.
Income derived from money that has been set aside by a certain person through his work I would tax at 4 per cent.
Salary and the different earnings I have mentioned in speaking of earned income I would tax at 2 per cent.
Regarding salaries I would consider that the tax of 2 per cent should only apply to a reasonable living salary, limited, say, to $10,000. I believe that legislation of this character would be very sound. If you look into the income tax returns you find that those who pay the most are the salaried and professional people. Consequently there should be a fair readjustment and reapportionment of the tax. I will not occupy any more of the time of the House in discussing this matter. In closing, however, I wish to congratulate the government for having acceded to the first point of my resolution and raised the amount of exemption from $300 to $500. But they should also consider at the earliest opportunity the advisability of changing the law regarding the two points which I have dwelt on this afternoon.


Mr. FONTAINE (Hull) (Translation):: It affords me, Mr. Speaker, much pleasure to second the resolution which the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archam-bault) has so ably proposed to the House.
Income Tax Amendments

I am especially pleased to support such a resolution for the reason that a great number of the electors whom I have the honour to represent in this House, have asked me to do so, among these I may mention the "Cercle Catholique des Voyageurs de Commerce" of Hull. It is hardfy necessary for me to speak at length on this question, the hon. Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) having recently announced that a bill would soon be brought down to grant the first part of the resolution, that is to say the part which refers to the increase of the exemption from $300 to $500 for each child under 18 years old. I wish to thank the government on their decision, it is another popular measure which will redound to their credit. Indeed, Sir, no one in this House will contend, I am sure, that schooling, education and bringing up of a child only, costs $300 per year. I am speaking of a child to whom we wish to give the necessary means of earning a good living, so that he may be in a position to do his share of work and good for his country, especially in our dear province of Quebec where, let us thank God, families are large. The present act is certainly a hardship and hindrance to the education of the children, and I am not astonished that the hon. Acting Minister of Finance, who lives in our province, and therefore knows the facts upon which this resolution is based, has decided to increase to $500 the amount of the exemption for each child.
I also think that the second request mentioned in this resolution should be allowed. Indeed, Sir, in my opinion, the government should establish a difference between the tax levied, on the salary and the one levied on the income of money invested in companies or paying enterprises. It is only fair that the salary of the person who works-even if it is large-should not be taxed as high as the income of the person who has. inherited his capital or receives large dividends without having to work.
Finally, I come to the third and last part of this resolution, namely:	That married
people under the regime of community of property should enjoy the same privilege, as regards exemption, as those married under the regime of separation of property. I think, Sir, that it should not be necessary to insist upon this point. It should be sufficient to bring out the facts so as to show that there is a serious injustice. Indeed, here are two neighbours of whom one is married under the system of separation of property, he is entitled to an exemption of $2,000 and his 
wife is also entitled to an exemption of $2,000, that is $4,000 for the two, while the other neighbour who is married under the regime of community of property is only entitled to $2,000 and his wife gets no exemption. As you are aware, Sir, this only affects our province, since the regime of community of property only exists in the province of Quebec.
Before resuming my seat, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres for his courage and perseverance in demanding justice, and I trust that the government who have already acquiesed in the first part of the resolution, will consent, after further consideration of the question, to adopt the other two parts of the resolution.


Arthur Meighen: There has not .been much discussion on this motion, and I do not feel that my opinions on all the points of the resolution are matured; but I feel like stating them,, such as they are, as respects all three. I am in full accord with the first portion of the resolution. I have always felt that the allowance in respect of children was not adequate, having regard to the individual and to the married man, and having regard, of course, as well to the high cost of living now prevailing, making the lot of him who had a family, particularly a large one, much more difficult than the lot of the single man. Of course $500 is a very considerable increase from $300, but, in my individual opinion I feel it is not too much even yet. Of course, when the tax was put on, as with many other features, we awaited the working out of it, and we learned in respect to it by experience, just as we have learned in respect of many other things. I think I recall the other unreasonable objection by the member for Peterborough at that time, referred to by the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archam-bault); and as he referred to it, I could not help also recollecting that the same member for Peterborough was the only one man to tne right of the chair who agreed with the equally absurd contention of hon. members opposite that the government of that day was usurping power.
I do not feel at all convinced of the wisdom of the second portion of the resolution. I mentioned to the hon. member, just by way of illustration, in the hope that the question would lead to a free elucidation, the instance, of a man who has earned at farming, or some other hard labour, a competence for his old age, has it invested, secures the revenue, and I questioned the hon. member whether he considered that revenue any less earned than that

Income Tax Amendments
earned by the bank president, say, $50,000, or that of the railway general manager, or some other highly paid official of a large concern. He answered me by saying first of all, that the man with $1,500 had no tax to pay. Well I do not think he is right to begin with, but even if he were it would not be an answer. He is not, if the subject is a married man; but if he is a single man, as I understand the law, his exemption is only $1,000. So that I was scarcely entitled to the rebuke wnich the hon. gentleman administered. I would consider it nothing but the grossest hardship to come with special emphasis on a man in receipt of a small income upon which he hopes to maintain himself in old age, and tell him, "That is something you did not earn, something coming to you as a result of fortune or legacy, so we are going to tax you extra on that amount," while saying to his brother in receipt of a very large income, because it took the name of a salary, "We will let you off practically free, and what we lose from you, we will exact from the fellow who has lived upon the money he has earned." I know other countries have adopted that proposition.
I know particularly that cities and towns have adopted it, and I think provinces as well, but I have myself seen the grossest hardship as a result of its adoption. I have seen instances where, as a consequence, there being no exemption at all in cases of persons who had not sufficient income to live upon, the result of accumulation of a lifetime, there was an invasion of the capital in order that this money might be exacted for the benefit of the municipality. I am not at all convinced that there is any rule different in character between incomes that are honestly earned. If the income is honestly accumulated by work and toil, or by the use of brain or body, I have never been able to convince myself that the state has a right to classify one as against the other, and to say that one may be exempted and the less fortunate one penalized. There may be cases where the incidence would be fair, but there would be very many where the incidence would be anything but fair.
The hon. member proceeds further and says "In case of . property that comes clown through legacy, I would pounce on that harder still; I would exact six per cent; whereas in the case of income derived from other unearned investment only 4 per cent would be exacted." Well, what is going to be the result of that. Very much that comes through legacy is pretty hardly earned. The son on the farm who labours till he is thirty or forty-say twenty-five-gets by legacy a portion of the homestead. Is it to be said that that is not earned, that because it coifies to him under a will he will
have, to pay an extra tax upon it, in order that some other propertj'' which perhaps is a result of speculation, may be partially exempt?
A man becomes the owner of property, partly the result, say, of legacy, partly the result of his own toil and partly the result perhaps of one of the many investments that turn out fortunately. How in the world is the state going to examine his property to ascertain just what part of that is legacy, what part is the result of his brain, properly exercised, and what part is the result of the labour of his body? For the life of me, I do not know how that is going to be done. It may be done immediately with some fair accuracy; but after a few years, how is it going to be done? Some of his property is lost. Against what share is that going to be assessed? What part is going to be reduced of those three divisions, in order that the state may apply this complicated system on what remains? In respect of the division of assets, although, of course, one can make a very forcible case for what one might describe as the earner as against the man who is in receipt of a revenue from investments that he earned before, I do not believe you are going to get very far, and in my humble judgment, you are going to produce more complication and do more harm than good. Undoubtedly, in many cases you are going to impose hardships on individuals.
Coming to the third phase of the resolution, I am not quite certain yet that I am clear upon it. So far as I know, in the provinces in which I have lived, there are no divisions as respects classes of marriages. I do not know that that can be said absolutely. There may be cases where . property is held in common, even though it is 4 p.m. not a consequence of the marriage settlement, and there certainly are cases where husband and) wife would have individual properties and individual incomes assessable under the law. The hon. member pointed out that in case, for example, of an income of $6,000, where $3,000 is income from property rights of the wife, and $3,000 income from property rights of the husband, if those are held separately under the separate income marriage, there are two exemptions of $2,000 each, whereas, in the case of the same property, with $6,000 of income derived therefrom, where it is held under a community system, the exemption is only $2,000. I would presume there would be some discrimination, but for the life of me I do not know how you are going very fairly to get over it in the way the hon. member describes. I would be disposed

Income Tax Amendments
to get over it in the other way-to take the case of the wife who has an income and the husband an income and allow the two of them only the one exemption, dividing it half way between them. There is really only one home, one unit, and it does not seem to me fair that there should be the total exemption, particularly the total married exemption, if I may so describe it, attributable to both the husband and the wife where each has a separate income. These things tend to an apportionment of what really was the property of the one amongst the two in order that double exemption jnay be enjoyed. Would this difficulty not be met in the straightest, easiest, as well as the fairest way, by allowing the one home the one exemption, added, of course, to the one exemption being the exemption in favour of the children?


Mr. PAUL MERCIER (Westmount-St. Henri (Translation):: more appropriate to help the country's children and give them the schooling and education necessary, so that some day the country may make use of their strength and intelligence to help in developing our resources in every sphere. I think it would be regrettable to lose sight of that aim owing to a. very badly conceived legislation which would prevent us giving a good education to our youths and oblige us to look towards immigration to obtain the brains which we need to administer our affairs.
As to the difference which exists between married people, under the system of separation of property and those under the system of community of property, this act seems to unjustly hit this class of citizens who bring as a part of their marriage the sacramental condition, which is love, while it favours, I will not say those who unite without love, but those who seem not to have lost sight in their marriage of the pecuniary side of the question. I fail to see why two married women, equally subject to taxation, should not be placed on an equal footing, and, if there is to be any discrimination, I think it should be the one who is under the regime of separation of property that should be taxed, and not the former, because the woman under the regime of separation of property is more often than otherwise in a position to contri-but to the treasury.
I believe that the married man, the head of a large family, does his share for the country and it is in him that our hopes must rest for the safeguard and building up of our country. This is demonstrated, in a most striking manner, in every war. It is especially the families that have sons who win the wars and certainly render the greatest services in that connection. One must never,
I think, draw a parallel between money values and human lives. We saw during the last war many people, very patriotic in words, who wanted to send everybody overseas, not having sons themselves, while they remained here and succeeded in winning the title of what is known to-day as war profiteers. These people made a great fuss to win the war. Today when our country is overburdened with debts, I do not see why we should allow to remain on our statutes laws sponsored by them to protect their own interests. Under these circumstances I deem it my duty to strongly support the resolution of the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres. Being fully aware of the sense of justice and uprightness of the hon. Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), I hope that, at this present session, we shall receive a square deal in connection with this legislation.

Mr. E. C. St. PERE (Hochelaga) (Translation) :	The resolution, Mr. Speaker, that
the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) has introduced, seems to express the request of a great number of people, if one may judge from the numerous petitions addressed to members. The present system of taxation on incomes, which is so much in evidence since it has been imposed upon us to defray the expenses of the war, seems to me the most equitable, because it must be commensurate, according to our progressive system, with the resources of each one. This does not imply that it is not susceptible to improvement. The champions of progressive taxation must be guided by the rules governing strict justice. Indeed1, it is through sacrifices that each citizen shoulders his share of social burdens. The sacrifice of the poor is always felt more than that of the rich. The former tells on'the necessities of life, the latter bears on luxuries. Wrongly is taxation considered as a spoliation. It is the acknowledgement of a public service and it is. unjust and disloyal, on the part of citizens, to cheat the law or seek, by underhand dealings, to avoid it. However, if all members of a community are forced to contribute to the public taxes, it does not follow that they must all do so in the same proportion. As a principle, every one is held to pay for a service according to his means and the benefit he may derive. It is self-evident that large land owners or manufacturers, who have important interests at stake, benefit in a greater measure from the protection of the law and the public services than the man whose interest consists in the work that his two hands perform; the former must therefore contribute in a greater measure to their support. I approve of the suggestion of increasing from $300 to $500 the margin of exemption allowed for each child under 18 years old, but I add that this exemption of the tax is cut off exactly when it becomes most needed. You have, for instance, a son who is just eighteen. He is endowed with talent, and you intend to give him a profession which he will later on do honour and exercise for the welfare of society. Up to the day he is received a lawyer, a doctor, and so forth, he will entail heavier expenses from year to year, yet it is just the time chosen to cut off the exemption. Does the legislator wish to punish you for working to provide for the future of your child, when you might have unburdened yourself of a great yearly expense by placing him in apprenticeship in some trade, the moment he has reached the age when the law obligingly dispenses him with further schooling? No doubt, such was not

Income Tax Amendments
the intention of the law but the exact result nevertheless is to discourage education among those who are not wealthy, or in other words, it aims at restricting education to those who are favoured by fortune. In the case of boys it has especially an economic bearing. However, when it comes to girls, we meet with a problem which has to do with the home life of a family. At eighteen, it is the age when, under normal conditions, a young girl leaves the convent. Back to her home, what will be her future. "There are parents whose thoughts dwell only on the mighty dollar;" they have already heavy burdens; they will not add another one, the young girl must therefore earn her living, she is given her full freedom, a position must be found for her in a manufacture, a store, an office, or-a superlative honour and blissfulness-"in the government." what will be her fate, it is of small consequence, what is there to be feared? "Miss so and so" earns her living.
It is the reverse with other parents, they look after the future of their daughters. They must think of means so as to support, feed, clothe them, also do a little entertaining, and this is not accomplished without money. On the other hand, the young girl at home, under the eye of her mother, will learn how to keep house, prepare and cook the food, sew, and so forth, in a word to equip herself so as to be a good wife and a good mother. You may think that the father should receive some compensation? You are wrong. Since he has chosen to keep his daughter at home until she finds a suitable husband, instead of giving her the opportunity of following some line of business and leaving her without protection amid the dangers which surround such existences, let him pay for it. He does not deserve to be exempted from taxation. What is most astonishing, is that a heavier tax is not levied for having lost his business acumen.
To establish a difference between the portion of taxation which is applied to the income on capital and that which is applied to salary or wages. Everything, in this world, Sir, harmonizes through the relation, which one thing bears to another, for progression is always, so to speak, a kind of proportion. In the case we are dealing with at present, it means that the rate increases in proportion to the amount taxed, it matters little whether the income is derived from unearned capital or consists in a salary or wages.
An employee on a small salary, let us say between $3,000 and $4,000 per year, must necessarily be very sparing to make both ends meet. In the advent of sickness or 91
death, his family will be left without a cent; and yet during all his life he will have paid to the state the same rate of taxation as the person enjoying the same income from investments which will shelter his heirs from want. Let us take the case of a father with three children having a yearly earned income of $5,000. He has an exemption to the amount of $2,000 plus $900 as long as his children are under 18 years. On what remains he will have to pay a tax of $84. Do you expect that this man, at his death, will leave a fortune to be compared to Croesus' wealth? No, for the cost of living, to-day, is too high for those who wish to give their children the education so necessary to encounter the struggle for life. If success belongs to the most qualified, we must not take away from those in charge of their education, the means of starting them in life. My hon. colleague from Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) asks us to discriminate in the rate of taxation on the earned and the unearned income. When should an income be considered as earned? The committee on Ways and Means of the United States Congress are of the opinion that the said income should never exceed the sum of $20,000, and that all salary above this amount must come under the maximum tax and surtax. I think it is but right to establish this difference, because it removes from the class of reasonable salaries and minimum taxation, those who, among the people on a salary, receive large amounts for their services. If the citizens of a state must contribute to the maintenance of the government, each, as much as possible, to the extent of his ability, that is, in proportion to the income he receives under the protection of the state, I think that the system favoured by the committee on Ways and Means of the United States Congress is the most equitable. It protects the workman and the wage-earner who have begun to set aside their savings, rewards the person who, after having saved, is receiving a small income from his investments in real estate, and allows the merchants to provide for financial crises brought on by trade depression. Should the amount of $20,000, as mentioned, appear too high as an earned income let us adopt the amount favoured by the United States farming group, that is $6,000, and, all incomes above this sum must be debarred from the minimum rate of taxation, under the term of earned interest.
Should we adopt either one system or the other, equally destined to protect the small wage earner while not ruining the magnates of the financial world, we must apply the

Income Tax Amendments

maximum tax and surtax to all the incomes over the amounts above stated. The government could not do otherwise in these days when money is needed to meet the expenses of the country.
This side issue, Sir, does not alter in any way the just and equitable principle of the second part of the resolution under debate. It only throws more light on the subject and demands more precision as to the definition "in dollars" on the income earned or income derived from labour..
I cannot conceive, Sir, that a salary earned or the income derived from labour can apply indifferently, and in the same way, to the wages of a mechanic of the Angus shops and to that of a general manager of an important bank, or of any other large financial institution or railway company. It would be the proportional taxation instead of the progressive one. The Italian government had to face a similar problem which it solved in the following manner:	Income
earned, income mixed and income derived from capital. These mixed incomes are partly derived from labour and partly from income on capital. It is thought in Italy that these mixed incomes are better applied to small merchants and to farmers than all other systems. People are taxed in a proportion known as intermediate between the income earned and the income unearned.
As regards the proposal to give married people under the system of community of property the same exemption as to those under the separation of property system, I think it is but just and necessary.
However, it is absolutely indispensable that in all well organized society, the old maxim of the "stronger supporting the weaker" should continue to be put into practice and I think that the government were well advised-and I congratulate them-in showing their sympathy and giving their support to the first part of the so needed resolution which the hon, member for Chambly and Vercheres has introduced.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR (Quebec County) (Translation) :: It is, Sir, a genuine pleasure to
associate myself with those who have supported the resolution of the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) I think it is fair and equitable to establish a distinction between the father of a large family and one who has no dependents. It is true that the present act allows an exemption of $300 per child; but on the other hand, if we consider what it costs to a father of a family for schooling, education and the incidental expenses of bringing up children, the

increase of the exemption which is proposed in the resolution before the House, is simply a trifle.
Years ago, the government of the province of Quebec, then under the leadership of the late Hon. Honore Mercier, made a grant to all fathers of twelve children. This legislation was a beneficial act, and I think that it is an example which can well be pointed out to this House, especially at a time when we are deploring the emigration of our Canadian families to the United States. Who are the families that are thus leaving the country? They are, generally, those of good farmers of the province of Quebec and of other provinces; our labourers with large families who toil and find it hard to provide for their children. Well, Sir, if it is desired to stem the tide of emigration towards the United States, is not this resolution of a nature to bring back hope to our worthy bread earners, in the province of Quebec, who are on the eve of emigrating.
Moreover, Sir, should the head of a family having ten or twelve children be taxed at the same rate? I feel satisfied that we should go one step further than the resolution of the hon. member does, and that the father of a family of ten or twelve children should entirely be exempted of the income tax.
I now come to the second part of this resolution. It would only be right and equitable that persons having inherited of a capital which they did not earn, should contribute more in taxes than a poor wage earner who must support his dependents out of a salary hardly sufficient to meet the necessities of life.
I also think, Sir, that it would be quite right and just to further consider the third part of this resolution and accept it, so as to remedy this unjust distinction which exists between married persons under the regime of separation of property and those who are under the regime of community of property. If married persons under the former system have a right to an exemption of $4,000, I do not see why married persons under the system of community of property should not enjoy the same exemption.
I deemed it my duty, for the reasons given above, to address the House in support of the resolution of the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) for which I intend to vote.


Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant):: Mr. Speaker,
I think the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) deserves to be commended for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I very heartily endorse the first paragraph of the resolution; I

Income Tax Amendments
suppose there is very little difference of opinion among hon. members with regard to increasing the tax exemption for every child.
With respect to the second paragraph, it seems to me that the phrase, "invested capital" does not indicate the distinction which the hon. member and many of us would make, that is, the distinction between earned and unearned income. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) has already pointed out that the income on savings is earned. I think there should be no discrimination against such income. I do believe, however, that in the administration of income tax we ought to make a distinction between earned and unearned income, and during the debate on the budget, when I trust the hon. member will be in his seat, I shall discuss the matter more fully than I care to at present.
With regard to the third clause, it seems to me that the right hon. leader of the opposition has made a very practical suggestion to avoid what is obviously unfair at present; that is, that the family shall be taken as a unit in considering the income. If I understood the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres correctly, he advocates the splitting up of the unit income into two parts, that of the husband and that of the wife. In this event we would have the double exemption in practically every case.


Joseph Archambault: May I point out
to my hon. friend that the ruling of the department is that in the case of people married under separation of property there are two exemptions, one for the husband and one for the wife; but that those who are married under the regime of community of property are entitled to only one exemption. My hon. friend will appreciate the difference in taxation. In the one case there is taxation on $2,000 only-$80; in the other case there is taxation on $4,000-$160.


William Charles Good: The ruling of the department is obviously illogical and absurd, as the hon. member has pointed out, and I think some remedy should be devised. I would suggest that the family be considered a unit, and that the particular ruling which applies to people married under the regime of separate maintenance should be abrogated. If that is the intention of the hon. member, I shall be very glad to endorse his position. Again, I commend my hon. friend for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.


Mr. FORTIER (Labelle) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution of the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Arch-91i
ambault) aims at amending the Income Tax Act, so as to decrease the burden which weighs upon heads of families. It is a most popular resolution. It has the support of all heads of families in this country, and certainly the hon. Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), who acceded to this request, performed an act deserving the approbation of the country by assuring us that this tax exemption for each child under 18 years old, will be changed from $300 to $500.
Do we always do the right thing, when legislating for the head of a family, for the one who has the care of a home, for the father who is surrounded by numerous children whom he is obliged to bring up, feed and provide with the necessary education? Do we perform our entire duty towards the head of a family? For my part, when it is a question to help my electors, the person who is at the head of a large family is always given preference. I think that we can never do too much to acknowledge the sacrifices he makes so as to bring up his family in a proper way. One of our great statesmen of the province of Quebec, the hon. Honore Mercier, had one of the most popular measures passed which consisted in the grant of a parcel of land containing 100 acres to the father of twelve children. His successors carried out the same policy for a certain time. Unfortunately, to-day, this grant is abolished. The example given by this great statesman should be followed, I think it is somewhat in this spirit that the hon. Acting Minister of Finance has promised this House to further help the head of a family by unburdening him of the income tax which weighs so heavily upon him. By lightening the burden, it is, in a way, the country which comes to the rescue of the toiler, of this home provider, of one who has brought up numerous children; and rightly are we doing so. Glancing over this land of ours, I notice that as a whole the country reflects the development of its smaller units which are the towns and parishes. And who are those responsible for the development of these smaller units of our fatherland? They are the heads of families. They are the ones who, by their sacrifices, create the activities extant in these small country places and it is the latter which ensure the prosperity and wealth of our country.
There is another reason that should induce us to protect the head of large families, it is that to be powerful, countries are bound to have numerous subjects. The great nations, are those that are peopled by millions
Income Tax Amendments

of citizens, such as England, France, the United States and all the countries that are densely populated. In our young country we strive to increase the number of our inhabitants. Should we not favour the makers of homes, should we not encourage the heads of families, should not our thoughts dwell on the cradle? We do give some thoughts to all this when we support the resolution of the hon. member for. Chambly and Vercheres. It is, therefore, with pleasure that I give my sincere support to this resolution. I know not of any more popular measure which can be adopted by the government to further lighten the burden of taxation.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) has, if anything, added to his already widespread popularity by again bringing forward this resolution. I recall that in response to the resolution and the speeches of the hon. member on this subject on a former occasion, the exemption of $200 which was in the original act was increased in 1922 to $300, and I am willing to give him the credit for having advanced that idea. This year the government, recognizing the justice of the request, have proposed to increase that exemption to $500, and the resolutions are now on the order paper.
As I listened to the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres it occurred to me that I would like to enlist his sympathies and his energy and support toward trying to collect taxes from those who apparently sit up at night trying to evade the just payment of them. It is apparent from the experience of the administration that there are a good many people trying to evade taxes who are quite able to pay and that we have the least trouble collecting taxes from those who, perhaps, are the least able to pay. I admit that there are some defects in the act and that the legislation should possibly be reviewed. I am inclined to agree with the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) in his observations in regard to the exemptions as between husband and wife. It seems to me that the fairer method would be to recognize the home as a single unit.
I do not wish to delay the House more than to say this:	All that the hon. member
for Chambly and Vercheres asks is that we give the matter consideration. We are always prepared to give fair consideration to all measures brought before the House. The government offer no objection to this resolution.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Joseph Archambault: For a copy of . all correspondence exchanged between the government of Canada and other governments, corporations or individuals relating to the proposed acceptance, by the government, of the sending into Canada of about fifty thousand children now occupants of houses of detention, reformatories, or beneficent institutions of Great Britain.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the month of January last there appeared in the press a despatch which indicated that an offer had been made to the Canadian government by some institutions in England to send to Canada 50,000 children from reformatories, houses of detention and beneficent institutions. I do not wish at the moment to discuss the question of immigration; my motion is only for the purpose of having the correspondence in respect to that offer tabled in the House. Until I shall have had an opportunity to peruse the correspondence I shall refrain from making any remarks regarding the advisability of accepting any such offer. I only wish to point out to the government that if it is true that the larger number of these children would come from such institutions as I have mentioned, their inheritance might be dangerous, and the wisdom of allowing them to come to this country is questionable. For my part I would be very chary if I were in the government about taking any such chances without examining very carefully into the circumstances. Undoubtedly these children, some of them destitutes, some of them criminals- because they come from reformatories- deserve sympathy and assistance, but I submit that charity begins at home. I shall not make any further remarks on the subject at this stage, but will simply move that the correspondence be tabled.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which,
it seems to me, is of very great importance indeed to the whole country. We have from time to time had a good deal of discussion as to the character of the live stock we admit into this country. We have had a good deal of discussion with regard to the maintenance of a high standard of seed grain and that kind of thing, but apparently we have not yet taken it into consideration that it is tremendously important that we should have as high a class as possible of human beings if we are to develop in this country a high grade of Canadian citizenship. For some years I had considerable to do with the immigrant people of western Canada, perhaps

Immigration oj Children
particularly with the younger people among the immigrants, for some time having to make investigations with regard to the character of these immigrants. No one can come into close contact with the peoples coming to this country without recognizing that we have been altogether too slack in regard to the character of our immigrants. I do not wish to impress my own personal views upon the House, but propose rather to quote a few passages from the second interim report of the Public Welfare Commission of Manitoba, as printed by the order of the legislative assembly of Manitoba in February, 1919:
A careful study of the figures regarding the nationality of the various persons examined makes it more than evident that Canada has received an undue share of immigrants who under a proper system of inspection would not have been allowed to enter this country. Those familiar with social conditions among the defective classes realized that the welfare of the nation is seriously threatened by the influx of undesirables, and a brief survey of the facts obtained in Manitoba are of interest. Let us consider those in regard to illegitimacy, defectives and delinquents, as under these three headings we shall find grouped the worst of the imported classes. In considering these facts it must always be remembered that the Canadian population of Manitoba is 46 per cent of the whole. In other words, the foreign bom outnumber the native born by almost three per cent. ***** To deal with the jail population of the province, taking 400 consecutive admissions to the jails, what do we find? Twenty-three per cent are of Canadian birth, while the Austrians, who should under normal conditions only number eight per cent rise to thirty-three per cent of the total; and the Russians, who should number 1 per cent, contribute 11 per cent.
It is not clear from these figures as to what is the underlying reason that these foreigners should contribute a larger per cent to the jail population. It may be, and in my own judgment it is, very largely owing to the fact that we have rather bad social conditions to which these people come, and we have not yet provided the machinery for welding them into our Canadian citizenship; but it may also be, and to a certain extent I think it is true, that some of them come of a stock that is not altogether desirable, or that their children when first introduced into this country are not able to fit into our life here.
Taking another table-there are a number given here, and I shall quote from only a few:
Nationality of 269 unmarried mothers in Grace Hospital and Misericordia Hospital during the past year: British, 44.23 per cent; Canada, 25.76 per cent; United States, 9.23 per cent.
And so on. I will not give the smaller percentages. The comment is:
It is somewhat surprising to find such a proportion of British born among these mothers of illegitimate
children, but comparing the figures with those of a study of 266 cases in the last two years in one Ontario hospital, we find the most striking similarity; in Manitoba, 44 per cent; in Ontario, 40 per cent. When we study the character of much of the immigration we are in a position to make clear some reasons why such burdens have been imposed upon a long suffering public. In the craze for numbers we have allowed quantity rather than quality to be the slogan, and no better illustration can be brought forward than that furnished by a brief survey of the 266 Ontario cases. Eighteen (22.75 per cent) of the British born mothers were brought to Canada by one well-known home which has already foisted an immense number of defectives on the Canadian public, as the records of criminality and deficiency will show. Surely this one fact should be worthy of serious study by the Dominion immigration authorities. When it is stated, too, that only 26 of the 266 could be classified as normal-45 borderline cases, 191 feebleminded, and 4 insane and feeble-minded-further comment is unnecessary.
Again:
As pointed out before small wages and mental defect have a much closer connection than superficial students of social conditions suspect.
I quote again:
From a study of immigration statistics it is evident that some nationalities have contributed far more than their share to the defective and insane classes. Now that we appreciate this fact it is evident that the attention of the federal authorities should be asked to make a careful study of the whole problem and provide the proper remedies.
That report, as I have said, was circulated in 1919 by the legislature of Manitoba. We are told by those who have charge of the juvenile immigration that the idea is to relieve the Motherland of a large number who find it hard work to make a living over there and to give these young people a chance out here. In the foreword of the report of the Supervisor of Juvenile Immigration we read:
Juvenile immigration is a direct response to what humanity pleads, patriotism wants and Christianity demands-giving the younger generation a chance.
But as we read on in the report there grows upon one the suspicion that the real reason for developing our juvenile immigration is that we may be provided here with cheap child labour. Expressions are used with regard to the distribution of young workers, with regard to their services. It also says:
The importation of thousands of boys and girls of ages varying from fourteen to eighteen years, will in a large measure meet the needs of Canada in respect to farm and domestic labour.
Are we to be dependent for our development upon the importation of these children from the old land?


Joseph Archambault: What is my hon.
friend quoting from?


James Shaver Woodsworth: From the report
of the Supervisor of Juvenile Immigration, for

Immigration oj Children
*
1923. Still further in his report he points out that of these children who come 1,426 are wage-earning. The total wages paid to the above children amount to $173,190; that is, they are employed at an average of a little over $100 each per year. It is a serious situation; as I have said, we import these children under the guise of philanthropy and turn them into cheap child labourers. Again quoting from the report:
It was ascertained that the outstanding condition of the children was poverty, but the great majority are the children of respectable parents.
As regards these children who come from respectable homes of the workers of Great Britain, I may say that at the present time in England there is a very strong protest being made against allowing their migration. It is being felt over in the Old Land that children should not be forced to leave respectable homes there and be sent to this' country. Again quoting from the report:
The children come largely from overcrowded centres of population, London and the surrounding towns supplying the greater proportion of the children in the homes.
Some of us who have lived in the slums of East London and have visited some of the institutions there, who have lived among the people in their homes, while having every sympathy with the poor there cannot view with any great equanimity the bringing over of that class into Canada with the idea of building up a strong Canadian public. Again quoting from the report:
There are openings throughout the Dominion for British children of all ages but of course these openings are affected by the positions the children are expected to fill on arrival here, viz.; helpers from ten to thirteen years of age placed under principle of adoption or boarded out-various ages up to fourteen -workers fourteen to seventeen and over.
And again:
The most suitable ages to send a child to Canada for service are from five to fourteen years for boys, and from thirteen to sixteen for girls.
Do we propose in Canada to import children for service from the tender age of five years up to the age of fourteen for boys, and of the age from thirteen to sixteen for girls? I should like to read a clipping concerning one of the older boys brought over here at the time of the harvest excursion last year. This is a despatch from Brandon, Man.:
Trying to die by starvation because he had no money to take him back to England and because he was afraid of the stern Canadian winter he had read about, Walter Jones, a 19-year-old lad, who came to the prairie in the autumn with a contingent of British harvesters, crawled into a haystack on a farm at Rapid City and waited two weeks for death.
Suffering from terrible frost bites, his body emaciated from hunger, he is in the Brandon General 
hospital to-day. He will recover, but doctors say they will have to amputate both feet.
The youth had worked in the Rapid City territory throughout the harvest season, but he found himself without funds when the threshing finished. Depressed, lonesome, friendless, he decided to end his life. So he began his vigil, buried in his hay pile, out in the centre of an open stretch of country.
Then a little later on the despatch says:
Fourteen days and fourteen nights passed before the first determination, which had brought him to his haystack, crumbled and gave way to the demands of agony. Half mad he came from his place of hiding, staggered, stumbled across the prairies.
And so on. I know this is a very extreme case, but it is not an isolated case by any means. We have had within the last twelve months, both in western Canada and in the province of Ontario, a very considerable number of cases in which children who have been brought to this country have suffered very greatly at the hands of some of the foster parents and of their employers, a few of the children having been driven to commit suicide. This problem was discussed at great length last autumn at a Child Welfare Conference held at the city of Winnipeg at which reports were presented from the various child caring agencies in all parts of Canada. From the statistics there presented, and the investigations which were subsequently made, I should like to quote a few statements. The question was asked very clearly at this conference: "Does Canadian public opinion countenance importation of child labourers into this country?" And then the report from which I quote goes on to say:
The social workers of this Dominion are more than half convinced that, under the guise of child immigration, child exploitation is not only tolerated, but actually assisted by Canada's present juvenile immigration policy which has been followed for the past twenty years.
If the idea is to settle children in farm homes across the country, the question that the. child welfare workers asked in this conference was "Why not so settle the children that are already in our own homes in Canada." The report continues:
To date, with returns from but six provinces complete, there are in Canadian institutions 21,557 wholly or partially dependent children, distributed as follows:
British Columbia	 723
Alberta	 966
Saskatchewan	 353
Manitoba	 1,315
Ontario	 2,533
Quebec	 15,607
21,557
New Brunswick, St. John, Protestant
Agencies only	 75
Moncton	 49
The social workers who are collecting the figures have not yet succeeded in getting returns from all the provinces.

Immigration of Children


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: Could my
hon. friend give the institutions in Alberta engaged in this work? They are not under the care of the provincial government.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not prepared to give the names of all the institutions but I have the figures in the case of Manitoba. I am quoting from the statistics collected by the child welfare workers.


Charles A. Stewart: Are these the children that might be put into foster homes?


James Shaver Woodsworth: A certain proportion are.


Charles A. Stewart: Because we have never had enough children that were not mentally deficient to go round in Alberta.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am quite well
aware as the minister states, that a certain number of these children are not mentally capable of being placed. But as far as my own experience goes with our child welfare work in the city of Winnipeg there are a large number of homes that apply to which we will not send the children at all. And that is a point to which I shall come in a moment, I think the inspection is deficient. Again to quote from this report:
The placements in these provinces carried out by the provincial agencies for the last year amounted to 2,814 children, though 3,924 applications were received.
This bears out the contention of the minister :
These provinces in the aggregate could not place in suitable homes as many children as they have applications. The province of Quebec states definitely it cannot take any juvenile immigrants. Yet over and above these children the Juvenile Immigration Department is prepared to bring in under the Empire Settlement scheme 5,000 juveniles a year. And for 1922 and 1923, the Department of Immigration had under their supervision in these provinces, 3,125 (page 58 of 1922 report) and 3,513 (page 57 of 1923 report). The child welfare workers of the Dominion contend that this can be possible only because lower standards of placement in the choice of homes are being observed by the immigration agencies and the Federal Department of Immigration, than are tolerated by the public opinion of the provinces as represented in their child welfare work.
Again:
This lack of provision for at least one visit in the year in order to guarantee regular supervision of 4,330 children is witness of social work, which so far fails to conform to modem standards of child-placing.
That is a point I should like to emphasize. In nearly all our cities to-day we have developed fairly efficient children's aid societies and child placing agencies and the workers who are engaged in this particular branch of social service are very earnest in insisting that certain standards should not be lowered. They think that before a child is placed in a foster
home that home should be visited. They think it is not sufficient to obtain excellent reports as to the welfare of the child, perhaps from the employers themselves. They urge that there should be inspectors who would go out into the district, carefully inquire from the neighbours, see for themselves the conditions and report to the officers in charge. In the case of immigrant children this is not being done. There is less than one visit a year paid to the homes of these children, this permits a great deal of laxity which in some cases involves cruelty to the children. A suggestion has been made that a very considerable number of our own home children are not fit to be placed in foster homes. That is true, but I should like to point out that there is a very large number of old country home children who belong to precisely the same class. Let me quote again from this report as follows:
We submit the evidence of a few of the clinics maintained in Canada, in support of our contention that adequate precaution is not being observed in this field of immigration.
In one general health clinic in Toronto alone, 128 cases of juvenile immigration brought out in recent years by the same agency have required attention. Of these 23 were boys and 105 girls. Their story of social disaster is briefly summarized,-
Of the girls, 105-40 per cent confirmed prostitutes, 25 per cent venereally diseased, 70 have had 94 illegitimate children, 95 per cent examined mentally abnormal.
Of the boys, 23-2 known to have had venereal
disease, 95 per cent examined mentally abnormal.


James Alexander Robb: Will the hon. member just
quote the record to the statement he has already made and say what society he is referring to.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I will give the minister the name of the society later on. This report continues:
We quote further a statement of Dr. Eric K. Clarke, of the Canadian Committee on Mental Hygiene, "It is a well established fact that 75.3 per cent of the mentally defective children found in our public schools are there as a direct result of our lack of immigration inspectors. 27.9 per cent of these children were bom outside Canada, while the remaining 47.4 per cent were born in Canada of parents who arrived since the beginning of the present century. Only 24.7 per cent of our subnormal children can be truly classed as coining of Canadian stock."
I think that is a very significant statement; only 24.7 per cent of our subnormal children can be truly classed as coming of Canadian stock. We have to deal in all our cities with immense numbers who are imported and will constantly be a drain on the resources of the country and a menace to our whole community life. The report continues:
We also quote a summary of a survey carried out by the Toronto General Hospital of a certain agency's
girls since 1917.
Immigration of Children

Agency girls known to the Social Service Department since 1917.
Number	 125
Ages ranging from 14	 43
Majority between 18-21 years inclusive.
Occupation, Domestic	 77
Factory workers	 11
Mentality, Mentally defective	 77
Dementia Praedox	 5
Normal	 6
Not diagnosed	 37
With two or more illegitimate children.. ..	18
Prostitutes	 36
With Gonorrhoea	 12
With Syphilis	 10
With both V.D.G. and V.D.S	 3
Served jail or Mercer terms	 4
The question was asked at the Child Welfare Conference, "Is Great Britain unloading her child problems on Canada and being subsidized $40 per child-a total of $80-by the respective governments under the Empire Settlement Scheme?" I think I might well read in this connection a paragraph published in the Manchester Guardian of April 11th, 1923, by Henry Cotton, in which the following view is advanced. I am summarizing this as I proceed:
Child immigration originated in the desire on the part of the Poor Law authorities in Great Britain to rid themselves of the responsibility of providing for the boys and girls in their charge, when they were prevented by law from working in the factories. Instead of adopting educational measures to meet the case, the authorities conceived the plan of shipping across the Atlantic as many boys and girls as they could persuade to go.
It is not my desire to comment on these extracts. I think they speak for themselves. It seems to me that there are two or three things that would be absolutely necessary if we are to bring child immigrants to this country. One would be a most rigid and careful examination of the children before they leave the Old Country, an examination not merely for physical defects but an examination in regard to their mental condition.
I could quote, were it necessary, some statistics made by our immigration medical health officers with regard to the large numbers that slip through the hands of our inspectors. As one medical man said to me at the city of Quebec, "We can easily recognize as unfit a man who is minus an arm, a leg or an ear, but we cannot tell whether or not he has any brains inside his skull." We need more careful inspection.
There is another very practical point and that is with regard to the payment of children's wages. Under the present management the department leaves the matter entirely to the agency and the employer. Surely, it is not safe to trust this matter entirely to an agency of this character. The 
agency should be subject to the inspection of the provincial child welfare authorities.
Still further I would urge that the children and the homes should be under careful inspection of the provincial authorities. One of the inspectors speaking at Winnipeg admitted that sometimes reports were taken from various land agents and others as to the character of the homes in which the children were placed. Surely, it is not fair to the little children we bring here to allow interested land agents to report as to the character of the foster homes or of the homes in which they are employed. Still further, may I urge a point that I have brought up in another connection? The care of defective and dependent children under our existing arrangements is entirely a provincial matter, just the same as the federal government would make unemployment , a provincial matter; and yet the federal government can bring in any number of immigrants it pleases, including any number of these juvenile immigrants who may or may not be defective; and unload them upon the various localities, while the localities are perfectly helpless. The local community must go on building bigger and yet bigger institutions to care for them. It would seem to me that this is a matter that requires from this House a great deal more serious consideration than has ever been given to it.


James Alexander Robb: To the resolutions
suggested by the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) the government offers no objection. The records show we have no correspondence whatever in the department between the government and other corporations or individuals relating to the proposed acceptance by the government of the sending into Canada of about fifty thousand children now occupants of houses of detention, reformatories, or beneficent institutions of Great Britain.
I imagine, however, my hon. friend has in mind the statement made in Toronto by Mr. M. J. O'Brien, who claimed to be representing the British Immigration and Colonization Society. According to newspaper despatches, he made the statement that he expected that 50,000 boys would be brought to Canada in 1924 from the Mother Country. I do not know Mr. O'Brien; I do not know what authority he had to say that he was representing any immigration society in the Old World.
As regards the question generally, I am not prepared to admit all that has been said by

Immigration of Children
the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth). I am prepared to say that, as the years go along, and more immigrant boys and girls are coming to Canada, we should have, I would not say, a more rigid inspection, but as it is just possible that the staff has been undermanned, I think, we should have more inspectors. Generally speaking, however, I am not prepared to say that Canada has suffered from immigration coming to us particularly from the Motherland. I will admit that in past years some immigrants have been admitted who, perhaps, should not have been admitted to Canada. Each year the inspection is made stricter and stricter. We do not always meet with public approval; it is not always easy for officials of the department to give rulings protecting Canada; but the instructions to the inspector of the Immigration department are that they are to take care of Canada rather than of families coming to Canada. It sometimes happens that an excellent family leave their home in the Old Land to come to Canada, and that when they reach the port of debarkation in Canada it is discovered that, possibly in a family of four, five, six or seven, one child may be defective, perhaps that child is a little girl, and it is pretty hard to separate her from her mother and to send her back home. No later than this year the department have had protests from different organizations in Montreal. I recall one case where the department thought it better that the girl should be sent back home. Other members of the family, the father and, perhaps, two of the boys, had already been more than a year in Canada; they had established a home, and they had sent word over to the mother to sell out their little belongings and to come and join them in the new home in Canada which they had built for them.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is an altogether different proposition from the one which we are discussing. We are speaking about the bringing over of unattended children, quite apart from their homes and their parents.


James Alexander Robb: I will come to that in a moment. When the department, representing the people of Canada, was insisting upon sending this girl back, we had protests from social organizations, church organizations, fraternal organizations, against this inhuman method of treating people coming into this country. I mention this to show the difficulty we have.
As regards the homes that have been bringing people to this country, they are not all bad. notwithstanding the figures which my hon. friend has presented, there are in Canada many splendid citizens who have come to this
country in that way, who have established homes for themselves, who are taxpayers and who, perhaps, are now members of the executive administering some of these homes. The federal department is not the only immigration department which is operating at the present time. Some of the provinces, indeed, I think the majority of the provinces, have agencies in the Mother Country, and they are arranging to bring people to Canada. It may interest the House to know that last year-and I speak from memory-we had applications for about four times the number of boys and girls that we were able to supply, and these applications were all from good homes, homes that were certificated by the mayor of the community, or the resident clergyman.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Were those homes, in the majority rural or urban?


James Alexander Robb: I think they were mostly rural. I would imagine that most of them would be rural, although I am not definite as to that point. For that reason it is proposed to try to select and to bring to Canada children to meet that demand. But as I said in the beginning, orders have been sent out to the different inspectors to be most rigid in their inspection before these children are allowed to start out for Canada. Not only is it the desire of the department to examine carefully the children before they come to Canada, but we are endeavouring to have a more careful inspection of the different homes into which they go.


William Charles Good: Is there any inspection of the mental condition of the children, intending immigrants? Has any attention been given to feeble-mindedness?


James Alexander Robb: I said just a moment ago
that we had turned back several, and sometimes we are compelled to separate families. That is what causes protests to be raised with the department. I should like the House to believe that it is the desire of the government and the Department of Immigration to examine carefully, not only juvenile immigrants, but all immigrants coming to Canada. We realize that these people are coming here to be fellow-citizens with us, to be members of our family, and we are all interested in having the very best immigration. We have sent word over to the other side to tell the British authorities emphatically that we do not want people sent to Canada whose record is not of the very best. I should like to assure my hon. friends that the department is doing and will
Immigration of Children

do everything possible to see to it that there is a rigid inspection of immigrants coming to this country, and that care is taken of the immigrant after he comes to Canada.


Edward Joseph Garland: What was
the reply received from England when the minister sent over the request that only the most select should be sent to Canada?


James Alexander Robb: We sent the instructions to
our agents. We are not worried much about what the people on the other side say. We have in England Canadians representing Canada, and they are the people to whom we look to protect the interests of Canada.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Do the deportation clauses of the Immigration Act ipply to children? Supposing the department meets with a bad case that has been here for a couple of years, can such a child be deported?


James Alexander Robb: I could not say offhand about the number of years, but the deportation clauses apply to children.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):	Mr. Speaker, I should like to add
my voice to those who are protesting against the possibly lax, or what looks like lax, immigration of children. It would seem to me that the way to attack this problem is to turn our full attention to the possibility of raising the standard of life on the farms of Canada. Then the fanners would not require cheap child labour.
But there are really two sides to this question. In my home we have had many immigrant boys between the ages of fourteen and sixteen, and of these I remember only one who was satisfactory to us and happy in his new surroundings. I feel sorry for the children; I also feel sorry for the people who sometimes have to put up with unsatisfactory help. When the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) began to speak I was writing a letter to the county of Duf-ferin authorities asking who could take charge there of a family of six children. They are all Canadian born, and their parents are Canadians. Unfortunately the father does not like work. The children, however, cannot help their father's laziness, but by reason of it they are getting insufficient to eat and exceedingly little to wear, while their education is entirely neglected. This is a case in Ontario of native born children. I suppose there must be some way in which we can help these unfortunates.
It would seem to me that our greatest problem is to help our Canadian children by

raising the standard of life, particularly in rural districts. This would do away with the demand to bring in any kind of labour in order to get work done very cheaply, especially on our farms, because farmers are not getting sufficient returns from the sale of their products to pay the rate of wages which good and intelligent labour commands. I think the department should be exceedingly strict and admit only such children as are strong in body and intelligent.
The minister really did not answer the figures given by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg. These figures were not compiled by someone trying to make out a particular case. They were compiled by social service workers who are trying to benefit poor immigrant children. Undoubtedly it is a great loss to pay out money to bring such children here when, as too often happens, the provincial authorities have to incur the cost of keeping defectives, in detention homes, penitentiaries or insane asylums. It is a serious problem, and no pressure brought to bear by colonization bodies or homes should affect the government in the rigid enforcement to the limit of all restrictive regulations directed to the exclusion of defective immigrants.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Speaker, I do not desire at this time to enter into a tedious debate of this particular question. * My own position, I think has been made abundantly clear in the past. Two years ago on the immigration debate I took the opportunity of pointing out the evils which have been so trenchantly brought to the attention of the House to-day by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth). When the proper time comes I may again have more to say on the subject.
May I, however, take this opportunity of completely dissociating myself from those who endeavour to exploit children from other countries? If the government is to be a party to any such plans, I would urge upon the minister concerned more and more mature consideration of all that they involve. Canada is a young country, and we cannot afford to debase our nationhood. Having commenced our development late instead of in the early days of Christianity, we ought to profit by the lessons of other countries. I think the greatest danger to be apprehended is from the government apparently lending a willing ear to those who bring pressure upon it to relax restrictive regulations in order that they may secure child labour for farms and other places. I protest, Mr. Speaker, against such exploitation.

Immigration oj Children


Charles Marcil: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with conditions in the West, but I know something ,of conditions prevailing in the province of Quebec, having had to do with this matter while a commissioner of the city of Montreal. If I caught the figures rightly which were presented by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) fifteen thousand children are being cared for now in various institutions in the province of Quebec. Already we have to look after thousands of such children in the city of Montreal. I do pot think child immigration would be looked on with favour in the province 6f Quebec where the birthrate is very high. Only a few weeks ago legislation was passed in Quebec dealing with this subject, and I think it would be well for the minister to consult the authorities of the province before encouraging child immigration.


James Alexander Robb: May I point out to my hon. friend that the total child immigration into the province of Quebec for the year ending the 3rd March, 1924, was 203, of whom 117 were brought out by the Catholic Immigration Association; 3 by the Church of England; 5 by the Salvation Army; and 11 by the National Children's Home.


Charles Marcil: I am glad to know the
number is so small, and I am also glad to observe that no French Canadian institution has been engaged in this work, because in the province of Quebec we do not need to bring in children from the other side of the Atlantic. I think it would be wise on the part of the department to consult with the municipal authorities, especially those of Montreal, which is the largest centre for immigrant children, and where conditions are changing rapidly from year to year owing largely to the increase of foreign population.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I am very much
interested in the report of my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) on investigations carried on with respect to juvenile immigration into Canada. However, I would point out to him that there is a very strong desire to bring in all classes of immigrants provided they are physically and .mentally fit. That is, and always has been, the first requirement, but it is hardly to be expected that out of an influx of a few hundred thousand every defective immigrant will be detected and turned back.
Dealing particularly with the subject matter of the resolution, that of child immigration,
two years ago there was a demand for over five thousand children, mainly from homes that were certified by the provincial authorities. I shall deal in a minute or two with the provincial aspect of the case, because as my hon. friend has rightly pointed out, the provincial authorities become responsible for immigrants when placed, whether they be children or adults. It would appear therefore that there was a reasonable demand for these children, every one of whom was required to be under the age of fourteen years. I state most emphatically that no child below the age of fourteen years is being brought to Canada to earn its livelihood. The age limit from fourteen to eighteen was more or less an experiment. My hon. friend is quite correct when he states that at that age there is an expectation of some results from their employment; I am bound to say that that is not unreasonable. These boys and girls have passed the school age and their services might be expected to be of some value. They are bound to the family for a period of years, until they become old enough to take care of themselves. Only a few thousand of them are placed in this way, and one cannot say what the ultimate results may be. But they are given the regular inspection, and there must be the usual recommendations. In that unfortunate London case there was a good recommendation; the boy had been recommended by the clergyman and by influential people in the neighbourhood. In all matters of this kind there undoubtedly are lapses and there always will be.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Will the minister
suggest that an average of one inspection per year is anything like sufficient?


Charles A. Stewart: I am
comings to that. The department does not attempt to send any children into a province where the provincial authorities are not prepared to agree that they be sent there, and the same applies to domestics. That is not true, perhaps, in oases where people are in a position to establish themselves, but it does apply to the two classes I have mentioned; at least, it has applied in the past two years. I am prepared to admit the statement of my hon. friend with respect to the immigration that came to Canada around 1920, but the medical inspection has in more recent years been tightened up. More than that, last year when we undertook to bring out children in a larger way than ever we provided for medical inspection before the children started. Despite that fact and de-
Immigration of Children

spite the inspection in our own ports, children will get through who are mentally deficient; I do not think that is overstating the case. But so far as it is possible to ascertain the mental condition of the children, that is being done. Furthermore, we are to-day asking for a history of the child, where he sprung from, what his environment has been, and so on. In England to-day there are a large number of children with a good history who have been splendidly cared for and who can be brought to Canada and established here. My hon. friend is probably referring to the results of what might be regarded as lax inspection. Well, that is the sort of thing we have been trying to overcome.
So far as establishing our own children is concerned, I fail to appreciate why there should be a demand for children from the Old Land if they are available here in Canada. As to Quebec, I did not know that two hundred of these children had gone into that province. There is no doubt that large numbers of children may be found in the homes of that province, being well brought up and well cared for, and any citizen of Quebec who wanted to have a child in his home should be able to obtain one. In our own province, during the period that I lived there, covering some twelve or fourteen years, every child who came under the inspection of the provincial government and who was physically and mentally fit could find a foster home at a very tender age, usually between three and four years. Undoubtedly those who adopt children at that age do not do so to exploit their services, but rather to bring them into homes where there are no children. That has been kept in mind by the gentleman from whose report the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg read; it is one of the things he lays a great deal of stress upon. It is true that he cannot personally visit all these homes. I think in Ontario they have a very splendid officer in the person of Mr. Kelso who does make frequent inspections. While I doubt whether we can get 100 per cent efficiency so far as mem-tal examination goes, that is what the department has been aiming at by trying to improve and strengthen the medical inspection. Take, for example, the provincial mental hospital at Ponoka, Alberta; there is no use denying the fact that a great many people get into Canada who should never have been admitted. I found in the case of this institution that only a very small percentage of the inmates were'native Canadians; by far the largest percentage of them had come from other countries. It is with [Mr. C. A. Stewart.3
a view to overcoming that condition that we have provided for more rigid medical inspection, and it is the aim of the department, as I have said, to reach the highest standard that it is possible to attain.


Hewitt Bostock: If no other hon. member desires to address the House on this resolution, the mover will close the debate.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask one
question? Is the sentence correct in the memorandum which I read, which stated that the arrangement was that the British government paid a subsidy of $40 and our own federal government $40?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, that is correct with respect to the arrangement last year. I do not know anything about what arrangement was made this year. That was with reference to children under the age of fourteen, carefully selected.
iMr. ARCHAMBAULT:	Mr. Speaker,
since the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Robb) has declared that there is no such correspondence as is called for in my motion, I will withdraw the motion. I may say, however, that I do not regret having brought the matter to the attention of the House, because it has been the occasion of a very interesting and instructive discussion, especially in the speech of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth). The figures he has quoted only go to show that we should be very cautious in dealing with juvenile immigration. The Minister of Immigration has pointed out that quite a number of young men from good homes in England have become excellent citizens of this country. There is no doubt about that, but my resolution did not have reference to children coming from private homes, rural or urban. The despatch in the press which prompted me to put this resolution on the order paper stated that an arrangement had been made between the Canadian government and some institutions in England, such as reformatories, houses of detention and beneficent institutions, which wished to send these young children to Canada. Where it is proposed to have such children come to this country I think we should be very careful about what course we pursue; we should be very chary about accepting these offers. I wish to withdraw the resolution.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does the
hon. member understand that the minister has no arrangement with any home?


Joseph Archambault: I understand the
minister to have said that he has had no

Immigration oj Children
correspondence in that regard and that there is no arrangement with any home. That, I believe, is correct.


Mr. WOODS  WORTH@: Are these homes
still being subsidized as they were two years
ago?


James Alexander Robb: What homes does the hon.
member refer to?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am referring to the agencies or homes for the care of children who come out to this country.


James Alexander Robb: I have no knowledge of any
such homes ever having been subsidized. We have an arrangement with the British government whereby we pay a part and they in the same proportion and if there are any homes operating they deal with the British government.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Surely there is some arrangement between this government and the various agencies that are placing children in this country.


James Alexander Robb: I do not quite understand what the hon. gentleman is driving at but if he will let me know I will give him any information that I have on the subject when the estimates are under consideration.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I understand that
two years ago there was an arrangement by which the Canadian government paid $40 per head and the Imperial government a like sum for certain selected children to be brought to this country. My question is has the Canadian government any definite arrangement with certain homes or agencies in the Old Country or in this country in regard to this class of immigration?


Charles A. Stewart: The arrangement which we had a year ago was for a period of one year. There was no central home but there was an understanding that the children were to be acceptable to the Canadian authorities. Any legitimate organization might apply, but we reserved the right of inspection and also of investigation as to where the children should be placed and the kind of homes they were going to. Many such organizations have established homes in this country and some of them have been bringing children in for the last fifteen years. There was no necessity for establishing homes of the kind my hon. friend refers to so long as the children were physically and mentally fit and we knew that there was an opening for them in Canada before their arrival. That, of course, was also required by the British government before they were prepared to advance their share of
the money. The Canadian government was made responsible for the accepting and the placing of the children, and half a dozen different organizations took advantage of this opportunity to place the children.
Motion withdrawn.


REGULATIONS FOR OBTAINING PASSPORTS
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, reform is needed in the regulations for obtaining passports.
He said:	It is no use my attempting
at this late hour to elaborate a debate on this subject, and I have allowed the motion to be called simply because, as I understand, it gives me some strategical advantage when next the subject comes up:	the motion will
be on the order paper in a more favourable position. I suggest therefore, Mr. Speaker, that, as it is almost the hour, you call it six o'clock.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand that the
Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) desires to have the House revert to the order, Motions.


Alan Webster Neill: I wish it understood, Mr. Speaker, that I am not moving the adjournment of the debate. I wish to retain my strategic right in regard to this motion.


Hewitt Bostock: On Wednesdays the
House adjourns without question being put and the Speaker does not call six o'clock. The Acting Minister of Finance would like to have the House revert to "Motions" in order to move that the report of Dr. H. M. Tory on Agricultural Credit be printed.


Arthur Meighen: Then I suppose it is
assumed that motion No. 39, which the hon. member (Mr. Neill) has just moved, has not yet been reached, technically. If it is six o'clock we cannot proceed.


James Alexander Robb: I do not wish to press the
motion that would allow me to move that the report in question be printed.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, April 24, 1924