March 21, 1923

LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. FIELDING:

I used a moment ago a phrase which, I think, is an answer to my hon. friend. I said that the second chamber should be as a brake, not a block, to the locomotive. I think it is well to have a second chamber which can ask us to reconsider things. I do not complain in any case when the Senate says: You are in too much of a hurry; we want to wait for another year in respect to this particular legislation. That is a legitimate function of the Senate. If they attempted year after year to veto our legislation, I would agree with my hon. friend that that would be wrong. On the ether hand, if you give the Senate, by electing its members, the same powers that this House has, the elected Senate may say: What right has the House of Commons to say it represents the people?- we claim to represent the people as well as it does. I do not want the Senate to represent the people in that direct way; I want the House of Commons to represent the people. I do not want the second Chamber, as I have already stated, to be more than a guard against hasty legislation. Again let me say I am not expressing any opinion of the government; I am simply giving an outline of what I had hoped some day I could present somewhere in more concrete form. It may not represent even my own finality of judgment. There will be much discussion of the question before the change is made in the constitution, and it is just possible that in the light of that discussion I would like to modify my views. But, for whatever they are worth, I am offering these suggestions, and would ask that they receive the consideration of all who may be interested in the subject.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   SENATE OF CANADA
Sub-subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. DENIS (JOLIETTE) FOR AN ELECTIVE BODY
Permalink
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has made an excellent suggestion here to-day. In passing I wish to congratulate the member for Joliette (Mr. Denis) upon his careful presentation of his case. But what I want to point out to the Minister of Finance is that he ignored the point I raised in the question I put to the member for Joliette, whether Canada ought not now to have the right to make her own constitution. Until we have that right I do not think the minister or anybody else should put forward a proposal setting forth the manner in which the Senate should be constituted.

The defect in the proposal of the hon. member for Joliette is this: He was bound, in taking up this question, to give consideration to the powers vested in British dominions which have been given constitutions since we got our own, namely, the right to make or amend their own constitutions. What we should have had here to-day was a real substantive proposal that Canada should be given what Australia has-the right to amend and improve her own constitution in any way she likes. I agree with the hon. member for Joliette that the Senate as now constituted is the most irresponsible body known to the world. Yet it does a lot of good work; I agree with the Minister of Finance in the tribute he has paid to the Senate and his reference to the careful consideration it gives to many questions. But there is no reason why it could not be improved. One of the best legislative bodies in the world to-day is the Senate of the United States. That body has the power to originate expenditures, and I do not know why that right, perhaps, should be denied to a reconstructed Canadian Senate.

One of the unfair features of the present constitution of the Senate is that it does not recognize the group system. Hon. gentlemen to my left, members of the Progressive party, represent, I think it is, sixty-five votes in the House of Commons, but with the possible exception of one senator who has declared that he supports their views, they have no representation in the Senate. That is not a fair condition and it should be rectified in some way. Any group that goes into politics in this country is entitled to representation in both chambers, and I do not see how under the present system they can be represented unless they obtain control of the government of the country. While England has in many ways the best legislative body in the world to-day, its legislative system suffers under the great impediment of a more or less irresponsible House of Lords. But we know that England is rapidly moving in the direction of a re-

ANaturalization Act

form of the House of Lords. The greatest thing achieved in that line was when the British House of Commons three or four years ago took away from the House of Lords the right to veto legislation originating in the Commons. The change thus brought about is one evidence of the pronounced constitutional agitation now going on in England for the reform, more or less, of their political system. I noticed in the press of yesterday that there had been a discussion in the House of Lords about the reconstitution of the various commonwealths of the Empire with a view to connecting them all up. That may be all right, and these questions are coming up, but before they are decided I want to see Canada have the full right to settle what her future is to be, in her own way, and in a parliament that represents all the people. I say the Senate to-day does not fairly represent the people of Canada. We have not come to a conclusion yet as to how we are to settle the problems that are before us. An irresponsible Senate is an important factor in the settlement of those problems. Certainly we ought to take up this question of having the right to amend our own constitution. Australia has it; South Africa has it; New Zealand has it.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   SENATE OF CANADA
Sub-subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. DENIS (JOLIETTE) FOR AN ELECTIVE BODY
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. FIELDING:

Our own provinces have it.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   SENATE OF CANADA
Sub-subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. DENIS (JOLIETTE) FOR AN ELECTIVE BODY
Permalink
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. MACLEAN (York):

Our own provinces have it; then why should we not have it? A great deal was said by the member for Joliette about democracy. I hope that when the Liberal party recognizes the principle of democracy as applied to the Senate they will recognize also the principle of representation by population in the redistribution measure that is to come before parliament.

While I agree with a great deal of what the member for Joliette says, and while I agree with the Finance Minister that the Senate can be greatly improved, I say that the paramount question before us to-day is that of the right of Canada, through its parliament to amend its own constitution and direct its own destiny.

On motion of Mr. Fortier, the debate was adjourned.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   SENATE OF CANADA
Sub-subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. DENIS (JOLIETTE) FOR AN ELECTIVE BODY
Permalink

NATURALIZATION ACT

PROPOSED REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS ON REPATRIATION

LIB

William F. Carroll

Liberal

Mr. W. F. CARROLL (Cape Breton South and Richmond) moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Naturalization Act should be immediately amended to the effect that persons of Canadian birth or British by naturalization

under Canadian laws, who became subjects or citizens of foreign countries by naturalization or otherwise, and who returned to Canada during the war for war service or other patriotic motive, may again become British subjects by naturalization in Canada without the necessity of a five-year residence and without the formalities now required by the Naturalization Act.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take up very much of the time of the House in connection with this resolution. I have had communications from some hon. members and from persons outside the House to the effect that the resolution is ill-timed, owing to the fact that the period of five years following the conclusion of the war will expire some time this coming year. I pointed out to them, and I now point out to the House, that very many persons of Canadian birth who had gone to other countries, and in particular to the United States, had when the war broke out returned to Canada, joined the Canadian expeditionary forces, and gone overseas to fight the battles of the Empire. At the close of the war they returned to this country, were discharged here, and then went back to the United States. No inconsiderable number of men of this class were American citizens, Their residence in Canada, during the war, was very brief, but I have had communications from quite a number of such men as to the prospect of their becoming naturalized should they return to Canada again. I pointed out to them, of course, that under our present Naturalization Act a five years' residence in this country was required before they could become naturalized British subjects. Well, I take the ground, Mr. Speaker, that in the case of persons who were bom in this country and who for some reasons,-valid reasons in their own estimation,-went abroad and became citizens of other countries there should not be the same impediment placed in the way of their being repatriated and becoming British subjects once more as might be necessary in the. case of the naturalization of people of foreign extraction. I believe the Secretary of State would do well to investigate the whole question of repatriation and make it easier for persons such as I have described to again become domiciled in Canada as British subjects. The case of the returned soldier, of course, is somewhat different. If an American citizen, who had previously been a British subject, spent four years in the war and on his return remained in Canada for one year that would count as the five year term which is required before being able to become naturalized. However, as I pointed out, very many of those men did not remain in Canada on the termination of the war, but they are now anxious to return

Naturalization Act

and acquire the status of British subjects. It is on their behalf that I am proposing this resolution.

I do not suppose that it is quite the proper thing for the mover of a resolution to move an amendment to that resolution. I entertain the hope, however, that some hon. member will propose an amendment to the effect that the resolution shall also apply to former Canadians who went abroad, especially to the United States, but who came back to Canada and afterwards served overseas, and who now wish to be repatriated-that they should not have to fulfil the five years' residence qualification in order to again become British subjects. Our naturalization laws have been very much changed in recent years, and the question arises here as to whether or not this parliament has any right of its own motion to amend the present statute dealing with naturalization, that is the act chapter 59 of 1920. The old Naturalization Act was chapter 77 of the Revised Statutes of Canada 1906. To this act there were various amendments. One amendment, made in 1907, performed for persons in the service of the government of Canada the very thing which this resolution of mine attempts to do for soldiers, former British subjects, who served overseas in the Canadian expeditionary forces. In that statute, I think the act was chapter 31, the five years' residence qualification in the case of persons resident in Canada and employed in the service of the government, was done away with. That is what I am asking to be done in the case of the men in question. Various amendments have been made to the Naturalization Act, dealing mostly with matters of procedure, until the advent of the year 1914. Then, growing out of negotiations and conferences between Great Britain and the dominions, which began, I think, in 1901, there was an understanding that we should follow along the lines of the Naturalization Act passed in Great Britain in 1914. Previous to that year the position of one who became naturalized in Canada, or any of the other dominions, was somewhat anomalous. For example, a person who came to Canada from some foreign country and spent the five years entitling him to seek naturalization did become naturalized under our law but he was not regarded as a British subject in the true sense of the term; he was not recognized as a British subject either in Great Britain or in any other dominion outside of Canada. However, as a result of the legislation enacted in 1914 by Great Britain and Canada, any person who became naturalized in Canada under the provisions of that statute also became a British subject in all parts of the Empire. That

act had its advantages and its disadvantages. At any rate, the law of 1914 was, I think, in 1919 displaced by another statute. There were not so many changes made in the latter act; it had principally to do with the citizenship of persons who were enemy aliens, or were friendly to enemy aliens, during the war and therefore were not considered proper persons for citizenship. Coming to 1920 we find this legislation replaced by another statute. Now the question which presents itself to my mind is whether or not this parliament can amend the Naturalization Act without first having a conference with the Mother Country.

In this connection I might refer to a memorandum by the Under Secretary of State in which he says, that while there is nothing in the Imperial legislation of 1914 to that effect, he considers it has been the custom, since the enactment of the legislation referred to, for the Mother Country and the self-governing Dominions to confer with one another whenever a demand was made for an amendment to the Naturalization Act. I was in the House of Commons in 1914 when the act went through, and, of course, that was the first occasion on which this parliament took advantage of the Ontario Act of 1914. What happened in 1918 I do not know. I do not know whether the then government did confer with the Mother Country as to the various amendments which they made, for example the amendment of 1919 and the amendment of 1920. Notwithstanding that difficulty I suggest that it would not be a very difficult matter to confer with the Imperial authorities on the matter of amendment to this act. I do not think, however, that that is necessary. I think that Canada should have the right to say what her nationalization laws should be. The great principle involved in the Imperial act of 1914 was that it enabled the colonies to take advantage of this law to naturalize a person who would be a British subject all over the world, and I do not think it was ever the intention of the Imperial legislation of 1914, or that it was ever the intention of tHe Imperial parliament, or of the various colonies, when conferring regarding the matter, that if we wanted some slight amendment to our nationalization act we must confer with the Imperial parliament. I do not think it was ever intended, and if it was ever intended I think the intention was wrong, because surely we in this country, with our knowledge of our own land, know what our naturalization act should contain, and surely we have good common sense enough not to amend our nationalization act in any way which would be detri-

Nnturnlization Act

mental to the Mother Country, or detrimental to the intention of the Imperial act of 1914. I am not going to make any extended remarks as to the rights of soldiers in this country. I am simply saying that there are in my opinion, as a matter of fact I know there are, a large number of Canadian people who took part in the Canadian expeditionary force, and who returned to the United States, who would be more apt to come to this country to-day if they would not have to spend five years here before having a voice in the government of the country, and it is on their behalf principally that I move this resolution. But I say also that I believe that our naturalization law, as regards persons who want to become repatriated Canadian subjects, is altogether too strict, and I believe that the five years' residence should be eliminated, so far as they are concerned, provided, of course, that they are proper citizens.

To-day we are seeking for immigration. We want to get back all good Canadians who have gone to other countries. We are spending money to bring in the Irish and Scotch people to Canada. I do not know, but I do not believe we give sufficient attention to bringing back into this country persons who, for various reasons, left here and became citizens of other countries, and I believe it would be a step in the right direction if the government undertook to amend this act, so that the five years' residence in this country for such persons who had been Canadian citizens, and who -had become citizens of other countries, would be eliminated, and these citizens could be repatriated. It would be some small inducement to bring some of our one-time good Canadian citizens back to this country. I am in hopes that steps will be taken, not only to fulfil the letter or the spirit of my resolution, but that some steps will be taken to extend the resolution in the direction I have indicated.

Topic:   NATURALIZATION ACT
Subtopic:   PROPOSED REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS ON REPATRIATION
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :

I am not as familiar with the question of naturalization as I would like to be. My colleague has had the matter under consideration, and I would prefer that my hon. friend .should move the adjournment of the debate, so that it may be resumed at a later date, if necessary. I do not wish to shut out any hon. member from speaking, and if any hon. member wishes to move the adjournment of the debate, I presume he can do so.

Topic:   NATURALIZATION ACT
Subtopic:   PROPOSED REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS ON REPATRIATION
Permalink
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):

I recognize that, in some particulars, as the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) points

88 i

out, questions may arise which may require grave consideration. It is a subject which I do not know very much about. I just rise to make one suggestion. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) shows that the real object of the motion was that those soldiers who fought in the war, and who are at present out of the country, and who wish to return, ought to be allowed to do so in welcome at the earliest possible moment. The hon. member says that that is the chief object of his resolution. The hon. member makes suggestions in connection with matters of general policy. I would suggest to the hon. member that he confine the motion to just what he wants. I do not believe that any member of the House would or could object to his primary idea, which is the repatriation and re-naturalization of the soldiers. Of course, if the motion is adjourned we will never hear of it again this year. I would suggest an amendment be made in this motion. The latter part of it reads:

-and who returned to Canada during the war for war service or other patriotic motive.

I suggest that he should make it read:

-who returned to Canada during the war and entered into war service.

He would then absolutely cover all the cases he wishes to cover, and I am quite sure no one could object to it.

Topic:   NATURALIZATION ACT
Subtopic:   PROPOSED REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS ON REPATRIATION
Permalink
LIB

Arthur Bliss Copp (Secretary of State of Canada)

Liberal

Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State):

The question my hon. friend has brought before the House is one of very great interest unquestionably, but the House probably very well knows that during the past number of years conferences have been held from time to time between the representatives of the Imperial government and representatives of the colonies on this subject of naturalization. Formerly each colony had its own naturalization act. We passed our own naturalization act relating to Canadian subjects. In 1914 an act was passed, after several conferences with the Imperial authorities, in order to make uniform the naturalization laws of the British Empire and all her colonies. Since that, date from time to time, amendments were made to the Naturalization Act, for the purpose, as my hon. friend has said, of making uniform the naturalization laws, and making us all British subjects in any part of the British Empire. The only difficulty I see in the resolution moved by my hon. friend is that we undoubtedly can pass any naturalization law, in so far as it affects Canada, and make any person we like a Canadian subject. But if we do that this person is only a Canadian subject, and not a British subject, unless

Naturalization Act

we continue along the same lines as we have been acting for a number of years, by conference and agreement with the British government along the same lines, and make the law uniform throughout the British Empire. Last year the British parliament introduced an extensive amendment to their naturalization act, which was passed, I think, in August, 1922. Before passing that act they sent a copy to Canada, and we conferred by correspondence and cables, and agreed to that act.

I want to say to my hon. friend that I will present to this House in the course of a day or two a bill to amend our naturalization act, to conform entirely with the British act passed last year. I do not think the bill I have prepared covers the point which the hon. member makes entirely, but I can assure him, and I can assure this House, that the government will be very glad indeed to make very careful inquiry into the matter the hon. member brought before the House this afternoon, and if it is at all possible, in the interests of returned soldiers, particularly referred to by my hon. friend for South Cape Breton as well as my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), by inquiry and investigation to accomplish the re-naturalization of the soldiers returning to this country, particularly for repatriation purposes, we will be very glad to do so.

As far as the department over which I have the honour to preside is concerned the matter of naturalization has been under consideration for some time and I can assure my hon. friend that I will have my officials make a very careful investigation into the matter, and irrespective of whether this motion passes or not, I assure him that the question will be given every possible attention. If any scheme can be worked out by which this matter can be furthered and it be made more easy for the soldier who has come back to this country after doing service at the front, the department, the government, and, I am sure, parliament will be very glad to co-operate and assist.

Topic:   NATURALIZATION ACT
Subtopic:   PROPOSED REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS ON REPATRIATION
Permalink
LIB

Daniel Duncan McKenzie (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Hon. D. D. McKENZIE (Solicitor General):

Topic:   NATURALIZATION ACT
Subtopic:   PROPOSED REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS ON REPATRIATION
Permalink
LIB

William F. Carroll

Liberal

Mr. CARROLL:

I have no objection if the House is agreeable, to withdrawing my resolution with the suggested amendment of the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton).

Motion withdrawn.

Topic:   NATURALIZATION ACT
Subtopic:   PROPOSED REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS ON REPATRIATION
Permalink

OLEOMARGARINE


On the proposed resolution of Mr. Carroll: Resolved, That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend The Oleomargarine Act, chapter twenty-four of the statutes of 1919 (second session), and the amending acts, by providing that notwithstanding anything contained in The Dairy Industry Act, 1914, or in any other statute or law, the manufacture in, and importation of oleomargarine into Canada, and the offering for sale, the sale and the having in possession for sale, of oleomargarine, shall henceforth be permitted, subject to the provisions of the said Oleomargarine Act and to such regulations as are now or may hereafter be established by the Governor in Council.


LIB

William F. Carroll

Liberal

Mr. CARROLL:

I am ready to go ahead, but I do not wish to do so at this hour of the afternoon. I am willing to let the motion gtand if I have the assurance that it will be allowed to go ahead on Monday.

Topic:   OLEOMARGARINE
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. FIELDING:

I am not sure that anyone can give any assurance that this resolution will be taken up on Monday. As regards the government, we have no objection; but the matter is one for the House to determine when notices of motions are called.

Motion stands.

Topic:   OLEOMARGARINE
Permalink

INCOME TAX-EXEMPTION FOR


. CHILDREN


LIB

Joseph Archambault

Liberal

Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Chambly and Vercheres) moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the expediency of amending the Income Tax law by increasing the amount of the exemption for each child from three hundred dollars to five hundred dollars, and by exempting altogether the father of five children, under eighteen years of age, who has an income less than five thousand dollars.

He said:

Mr. Speaker, I cannot be accused of having taken much of the time of the House this session; following the principle, that nature having given us two mediums for hearing and only one for speaking, I believe it is much wiser to listen than to talk. The

Income Tax

13S3

motion which stands in my name asks for an amendment to the income tax of 1917. I made a similar motion in 1920, which was lost then through the opposition, I believe, of the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton). Last year I had the same motion again on the order paper. Unfortunately we did not reach that order; but I was successful in convincing the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) that he should increase the exemption for each child from $200 to $300. Needless to say, I approve the amendment which was introduced by the Minister of Finance and made law, but it does not go far enough. Everyone who is blessed with children knows that it costs more nowadays than $200 for the upkeep of a child. I have made a careful calculation of the amount necessary, and it is far above $500. The principle at the basis of the section of the income tax law which exempts the married man for $2,000, is that this amount is necessary to provide for the upkeep of his wife and himself. If that principle is good-and nobody will deny that

it follows that the principle should apply also if the man needs more money for the upkeep of his children. The cardinal idea of the income tax is that, 'a man should be taxed only in respect of his net income. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is a bad principle to enact laws that tend to discourage the raising of large families. We have at the present moment tremendous financial difficulties and we can hardly meet the expenses of the administration. Nearly every economic student of the situation believes that the best way of meeting our expense is by increasing the population. The government has brought in a policy of immigration which has been under discussion for some days and which has been criticised by both sides of the House, and I give credit to the Liberal party for the fact that a man can stand up on this side of the House and state his own views without fear of expurgation from the party as was the case under the old regime. I may say that I am in favour of a sane and select immigration with the examination of the immigrant at the port of departure. But after all the most desirable citizen-and I say this with due respect for those who are not such-is the Canadian-born. He is preferable to the European, the American, or even the British, because he has sprung from the soil to which he will be always attached. And there is no hyphen appended to his nationality; his only country is Canada.

This legislation which I submit to the government for consideration has been approved by all countries. I read the other day an article by Dr. Mareli in reference to France in

which he stated that laws had been adopted in that country against depopulation in virtue of an act of 1913. There is a monthly subvention given to families who have more than three children, and there are also subventions to the workingmen for their children, with a reduction of the tax on their revenue. There is also a special tariff for large families. Since 1920 laws have also been passed aiming at the removal of all conditions that might tend toward depopulation. The Montreal Gazette of March 9, 1920, contained the following article :

France's new inheritance tax will be a novelty. It will be based upon the principle that the more children man has the less estate should be taxed, and vice versa, the fewer children he has, the more tax should be levied. If a man dies without children, the state will take fifty per cent of his estate. If there is one child, the state will take 33 per cent. If there are two children to be provided for, the tax will be 25 per cent. Should there be three children the tax will be 18| per cent. In the case of four or more children there will be no inheritance tax. Fiscal experts estimate this new tax will bring in 3,000,000 francs annually.

The French government statistics show that half the French army in the World War came from families having four or more children. The same statistics show that one family in five has as many as four children. Further, more families whose estates are the largest are not those who have four or more children as a rule.

When I brought this motion to the House in 1920 the principal argument advanced against it was that the amount allowed in the Unijted States was not over $200. Since then, however, the law has been changed. The exemption is now $400. I have here a copy of an act to reduce and equalize taxation, to provide revenue, and for other purposes, and section 216 reads:

That for the purpose of the normal tax only there shall be allowed the following credits:

(d) Four hundred dollars for each person other than husband or wife dependent upon and receiving his chief support from the taxpayer, if such dependent person is under eighteen years of age or is incapable of self-support because mentally or physically defective.

In England, it is true, the tax for the first child is $200, but there are other exemptions. There are allowances for life insurance premiums on the life of the taxpayer and his wife. I have in my hand Pratt and Redman's Income Tax Law, 9th edition, and at page 19, I find:

Allowance for life assurance premiums-Subject to the restriction imposed by the Finance Act 1915, the acts allow the general reduction of premiums up to one-sixth of the gains of the person chargeable, paid for life assurance by the person on his own life or that of his wife, or on any deferred annuity in a British company registered under the Joint Stock Companies Act.

And at page 218 of the same work, section 3, the following appears:

As we have seen, a taxpayer who has insured his own or his wife's life, or contracted for any deferred

Income Tax

annuity on his own or his wife's life, or who shall under any act of parliament be liable to the payment of an annual sum or to have an annual sum deducted from his salary in order to secure a deferred annuity to him, or provision for his children after his death, is entitled to the extent of the annual sum so paid by him or deducted from his salary, to deduct the same from the duties to which he is assessed under any of the schedules of the act (16 and 17).

Then there is relief for small incomes. I may also add that England does not seem to care at the present time for an increase in population. On the contrary, there is such unemployment there that means are being taken and money is being expended for emigration to different parts of the Empire particularly.

I should have liked to touch upon another point regarding those who are married under a contract which does not call for the separation of property as we have in our province. This is a very interesting point, but as I have such a short time at my disposal before the House adjourns, I will not take it up now; also because the House will adjourn in three minutes I will not read the numerous resolutions which I have received from important bodies supporting my proposal.

I congratulate the minister on the amendment he made last year, and I hope he will adopt my suggestion this year and still further increase the exemption. Everyone acknowledges that the family is the basic element of a well co-ordinated state. By this legislation we would reap results beneficial to the country both morally and materially, and we would put our official approval on the teaching of nature and God-crescite et multiplicamini.

Topic:   INCOME TAX-EXEMPTION FOR
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :

As my hon. friend has stated, the representations he made last year were so effective that we did make a change along the lines of his recommendation. All he is asking now is that we consider the question. Well, we are always ready to consider, so we can all vote for this resolution. I am prepared ,o consider it. An alarming situation, how-aver, presents itself to my mind-alarming at all events to the Minister of Finance-and that is the many demands for exemptions, reductions and so forth. My hon. friend wants an exemption from income tax. I have many deputations-some of them have already appeared, others are coming-all wanting different forms of exemption. One wants to be exempt from the sales tax, another from some other tax, and so on. It would be very pleasant if I could say to these deputations, "Oh, surely you are all paying too much tax; you are exempt." But I am afraid I shall have

the disagreeable duty of telling them "We need the money." I have come back always to that old formula. I hope my hon. friend does not expect that I may do more than that. However, I will consider what he has asked for.

Topic:   INCOME TAX-EXEMPTION FOR
Permalink

March 21, 1923