Burt Wendell FANSHER

FANSHER, Burt Wendell, B.S.A.

Personal Data

Party
Progressive
Constituency
Lambton East (Ontario)
Birth Date
May 6, 1880
Deceased Date
April 1, 1941
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burt_Wendell_Fansher
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=c2527710-f476-45b2-a5f5-e6c1d5ed9aef&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
farmer

Parliamentary Career

December 6, 1921 - September 5, 1925
PRO
  Lambton East (Ontario)
September 14, 1926 - May 30, 1930
PRO
  Lambton East (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 16)


May 27, 1929

Mr. B. W. FANSHER (East Lambton):

2880 COMMONS

Immigration Policy-Mr. Fansher (Lambton)

and until we do that it is idle to talk of any immigration scheme involving the expenditure of millions in bringing from foreign countries people who are not acquainted with our ways, climate or soil conditions.

The government of the day announced in its platform of 1919 the best immigration policy that I have ever heard announced, either in this house or out of it, but I am sorry to say that they have never carried it out. This country was hardly settled when there was placed' a load on agriculture to assist every other industry under the sun. That load is there to-day, and agriculture is falling down under it. The Liberal party in 1919 had a platform which, as regards tariff planks, constituted the best immigration policy ever put forward in this country, but they failed to carry it out. If they would to-day scrap the Immigration department and, so to speak, step on the gas in implementing the tariff policy enunciated in that platform, they would do more to stimulate immigration of the agricultural classes than anything else they could undertake. The farmer is up against it tc-day at every turn owing to the assisting of industry in other lines, industries that will permit no competition whatever, that will not have immigration that may affect their industry, but that are willing that the farmer shall have all the competition they can give him. At the same time the farmer must provide assistance for industry to the tune of 20, 25 or 30 per cent. Let us relieve agriculture of some of this burden. Agricultural machinery, it is true, is not taxed to any great extent, perhaps an average of 10 per cent, but many articles that are used on the farm are taxed 25 or 30 per cent and even more. Even the rough clothing that the farmer and his family wear about the farm is taxed from 30 to 35 per cent; yet the government revised the schedules only last session and left them at these ridiculously high levels. If we want to assist agriculture let us relieve it of some of the burdens it now carries for the assistance of all the other industries of this country, and we shall have done something which agriculture can appreciate and from which it will benefit. I hope the government will realize that if they would put into effect their tariff platform of 1919 they could give some relief to the farmer, and it would prove to be one of the best immigration policies that has been presented to this country in years.

Amendment negatived, on division.

Main motion (Mr. Robb) agreed to, and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.

[Mr. B. W. Fansher.)

Topic:   SUPPLY-IMMIGRATION POLICY
Subtopic:   EDITION
Full View Permalink

May 21, 1929

Mr. B. W. FANSHER (East Lambton):

Mr. Speaker, one would think from the discussion that has taken place thus far that the request that clearances should not be granted to liquor cargoes going to the United States was made in the first instance by the delegation which visited Ottawa in January of this year. It is well, perhaps, that the United States delegation brought to our attention some of the recommendations that were made in the session of 1926 when the customs scandals were under investigation. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) this evening reminded us that the Ontario Liquor Control Board had requested one or two years ago that restrictions be tightened up at Windsor. The fact was that conditions became so intolerable in that district that the Border Cities Star, a very influential paper of Windsor, through a series of editorials complained of the conditions existing there. The Ontario government was forced to take action and it reminded the federal government of the recommendation of the royal commission and also of the committee that sat in this house in 1926 in connection with the smuggling situation. The recommendation was that the number of export docks should be reduced, and it was favourably considered by the Ontario Liquor Control Board and by the federal government. We are informed to-night that the number was reduced from about fifty to ten.

I wish to approach this question not from the viewpoint of the request of the United States delegation but entirely from our own viewpoint and our own concern. In the

session of 1926, when it was suggested that clearances should not be granted to cargoes of liquor bound for the United States, there was no thought that we were assisting the United States in enforcing their laws. The idea was that it was for our own good, for the benefit of this country and for that alone, that such a reform should be undertaken. It seems to me rather a superficial view to take of the situation to say that we should go rather slowly in assisting another nation to enforce their prohibtion laws when it is remembered that this question was under consideration for nearly a whole session in this parliament. A committee of this house brought in a report recommending that clearances be refused, and that report was adopted by the parliament of the day with all parties assenting thereto and not a dissenting voice in the whole house. The Prime Minister and the government of the day agreed that such should be dlone. The opposition, under a different leader from the hon. member occupying that position to-day, agreed that clearances should not be granted. The Progressive group in this part of the house were very anxious and insistent that all reforms along this line should be undertaken. As I say, the report of the committee was approved unanimously. Shortly after that the-whole question was thrown into the arena of a Dominion election. Definite assurances were given that the necessary measures would be taken to clear up the situation. The Prime Minister gave a pledge to that effect and' a royal commission was appointed which spent many months in investigating the whole liquor business and smuggling in general, although I may say that most of the smuggling was found to be in connection with liquor. The report of the commission revealed an appalling situation. 1'he liquor trade seemed to recognize no law whatsoever: they would not, in many instances, pay excise tax or make income tax or sales tax returns. I believe that .more than $4,000,000 have since been collected in back taxes from liquor firms.

The report of that royal commission was tabled only a short time ago, after a general election, before a new parliament, before a house whose personnel had largely changed, with many new members, and with a new leader of the opposition. That report recommended that the export of liquor be prohibited; that clearances be not granted. That report again was endorsed by every member of the house, by the government, by the opposition and by the party in this corner. There was not a dissenting voice. Why then should we hie away to the United States for an excuse to evade what at that time we

2714 COMMONS

Export oj Liquor-Mr. Fansher (Lambton)

deemed to be our responsibility in connection with this matter? I want to say at this juncture that a large section of the people of this Dominion has not lost sight of the promises made at that time, of the reports given to the house, and of the way in which they were received. Many of those people are very sincere when they petition the house at this session to have that recommendation enacted into law. The house has received petitions not only from temperance organizations but from women's institutes, township councils and various other organizations of a secular nature urging that the government carry out what both the committee and the royal commission recommended and what two parliaments adopted and agreed should be done. It is difficult for me to understand why this question should not now be considered from that viewpoint rather than from the viewpoint of assisting the United States in the enforcement of their law. The justice of the end sought I think demands that we should enact legislation which would refuse clearance to liquor cargoes going to the United States. Surely we are not interested in the trade to the extent that we are going to assist it by giving clearance to vessels landing contraband stuff in the country adjoining, but we should be interested, and I think we are interested as Canadian citizens in maintaining law and order in this country, and in maintaining the virility of our citizens.

I was astounded when I heard the Minister of National Revenue say that he was more interested in stopping smuggling into Canada than in prohibiting smuggling from Canada into the United States. I wondered by what process of reasoning he could figure out that he could curtail smuggling into this country when he says to the liquor exporters, citizens of this country perhaps only temporarily, but many of them citizens of this country for a good while: Pay me your $9 a gallon excise tax and you will get your clearance papers allowing you to land your cargoes in the United States. When he facilitates the entry of - that liquor into United States, gives the smuggler clearance papers and facilitates him in his work, how can he expect the smuggler to respect his request not to smuggle goods back from the United States into Canada? It seems to me that he cannot expect our citizens to respect the laws of this country so long as our government does not respect the laws of the adjoining country.

It has often been brought to my mind very forcibly that the export liquor traffic, especially in the southwestern peninsula of Ontario, which the trade calls the bottle-neck of the trade-and the bottle-neck it really is, because most of the liquor gravitates into that penin-

sula and crosses over the border at Detroit- has a demoralizing effect upon the citizens of that district, so much so that, as I said before, the Border Cities Star thought it its duty to take a hand in the situation and represent the facts as they were with a view to having the border cities cleaned up. That in a measure was accomplished, but to my personal knowledge, from observation of the trucks that ply our highways day iby day in large numbers laden with liquor for export across the Detroit river, and the certain knowledges of all our citizens that that trade is aided and abetted by the government in giving clearances to liquor laden vessels, it is not at all surprising that there has developed in the minds of the citizens in that district a somewhat lax idea of respect for law in general. It has been mj' observation that there have been more hold-ups on the highways, more bank robberies, more hold-ups of gas stations and the like in that territory within the last few years than there have ever been in the history of Ontario before. Only the other day we had a very unfortunate incident upon No. 2 highway down in that district, when an American citizen shot dead a Canadian citizen who attempted to hold up his car. Knowing, as I say, the state of affairs that exists there, the Detroit citizen was not going to take a chance on what might happen. Surely we owe it to ourselves and to our country to see that the morale of our people is kept at a high standard. Instead of condoning the export of liquor to the United States, the trade which is largely concentrated in that area close to the Detroit river having such a detrimental effect upon our citizens, I say that we owe it to ourselves to use every means in our power to try to stop that traffic.

I was somewhat concerned when the Minister of National Revenue gave us the information that when liquor is exported to any country which does not prohibit its importation the exporter is required to furnish a bond of twice the amount of the excise tax, but anyone who desires to export liquor to the United States is required to pay the excise tax in cash because it was not recognized by the department that he could land a cargo within that country. Then the minister made the observation that the excise tax having been paid and clearance granted it was no more of the department's concern or the concern of the government, but that the liquor was then in the same position as free goods, and [DOT] could go anywhere. The minister, in other words, virtually gave us to understand that having received the money and issued clearance papers, he washes his hands of the

Export of Liquor-Mr. Brown

transaction and says: It is nothing to me; do what you will with this stuff. But is that really the case? I do not think it is. There is a situation developing between this country and the United States that will some day alarm us and we shall be forced to sit up and take notice; and it is developing in that southwestern peninsula of Ontario. We cannot go on indefinitely forcing our goods which are contraband within the United Slates upon that country without engendering their ill-will, and some morning we shall perhaps read in the newspapers that some act has been committed which we shall greatly deplore.

This government has considered the question. It has before it the report.of the royal commission and the endonsation of two poirlia-ments. Then why should there be any excuse offered at this time not to carry out the recommendations made by that royal commission and by the committee of the House of Commons? I eay the least we can expect is that the leader of the government and the leader of the opposition should make a pronouncement upon this question. It seems this debate is going to end without the Prime M-inister and the leader of the opposition being concerned enough about the situation to make a .pronouncement to the house. To my mind this is one of the most important questions 'that has come before the house this session, not only because of the investigation made in 1926 and the recommendation which followed it, but because it involves our honour in connection with a neighbouring nation.

Yesterday I listened very attentively to the remarks of the Prime Minister when he introduced the resolution dealing with the [DOT] Geneva protocol. He stressed the fact that we had to rely on the good faith of the contracting parties. That was the fundamental bond of the whole treaty. Surely in connection with the request of the United States in this regard, good faith means a lot in cementing the international good will that has endured for so many years and that I hope will endure in the years to come. I urge upon the government not to let this matter pass without taking action, but to present to the house a solution for the problem by amending ouir law in the manner recommended by the royal commission which investigated the situation in 1926.

Topic:   EXPORT OF LIQUOR TO THE UNITED STATES
Full View Permalink

May 8, 1929

Mr. B. W. FANSHER (East Lambton):

I wish to direct to the Minister of Railways

(Mr. Dunning) a question based on a despatch appearing in The London Free Press headed thus:

C.N.R. completes plans for building big grain elevator at Port Huron. Sir Henry Thornton makes announcement at dinner given in bis honour in the Michigan city.

Is it correct that the Canadian National proposes to build elevator facilities in the city of Port Huron and, if so, why was that place chosen in preference to Sarnia on the Canadian side?

Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): I am sorry I cannot answer the question offhand. I shall make inquiry regarding the matter.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Full View Permalink

March 22, 1929

Mr. B. W. FANSHER (East Lambton):

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the hen. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young), and I was very much interested' in his last argument. But I wondered all the time how he would apply his reasoning to the present budget, the subject that is now under discussion, and my curiosity in that regard was not satisfied, because he sat down without giving us any idea of his opinion regarding the value of the budget.

The financial statement as presented this year is, from some aspects, very gratifying. The contribution through various forms of taxation of $450,000,000 to the public treasury by less than 10,000,000 citizens is a notable achievement. The contribution on an average of $45 for every man, woman and child, or $225 for every family of five, speaks well for the thrift and industry of the Canadian people. If we add to this amount the taxation levied by the provinces, counties, townships and municipalities, we commence to realize the huge amount that is annually provided to the different governments and taxing bodies by the Canadian citizens.

The Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) this year, as has been his custom in years past in presenting his financial statement, has divided his tax receipts under three main divisions. In the first he includes those taxes derived from customs and excise duties; in the second, war revenues, and in the third, receipts from the postal department, interest on investments, money received through the administration of the Canada Grain Act, and various other miscellaneous receipts. He estimates that by the end of the present month, which is the end of the fiscal year 1928-29, he will have collected in taxes from the first group, $248,400,000, made up as follows:

Customs import duties.. .. $185,000,000

Excise duties 63,400,000

[Mr. E. J, Young.l

Under the heading of war revenue he estimates that the amount that will be collected will be as follows:

Sales tax and stamp taxes.. $ 81,500,000

Income tax 58,500,000

Delayed business profits tax.. 450,000

Miscellaneous 2,200,000

Total $142,650,000

In the third group he expects to receive the following:

Interest on investments.. .. $11,600,000

Post office 31,000,000

Dominion lands 4,000,000

Canada Grain Act 3,000,000

Miscellaneous receipts 9,350,000

Total $58,950,000

This makes up the grand total of taxation this year of $450,000,000. Not until our entrance into the Great war were any of the taxes enumerated in the second group imposed; all our taxes were derived from the sources mentioned in the first and third divisions. Since our entrance into the war large sums of money have been levied through war taxes, but never during any single year have receipts from war taxes been sufficient to meet annual war expenditures. There has always been a deficit. Year by year the minister has given us a statement of the actual receipts from these war taxes, but never in any year with the exception of one-and I believe that was the fiscal year ended March 31, 1925 -has he given us a statement of the actual annual expenditures on war account. That year he showed that receipts from war taxes amounted to $147,000,000 and expenditures to $167,000,000, or a deficit of $20,000,000. This year the minister estimates that receipts from war taxes will amount to $142,650,000 and expenditures to $162,911,000, leaving a deficit of more than $20,000,000. This deficit on war account becomes a direct charge on other forms of taxation, and as long as we have deficits on war account, it seems strange to me that reductions in taxes from year to year should be simply in connection with war taxes. It is my firm belief that war taxes should be sufficient to meet annual war expenditures, and I would go further than that and say that war taxes should be sufficient to meet the annual charges on war account consisting of interest on war debt, pensions, soldiers' civil re-establishment, and so forth, and also to provide whatever sum is paid annually upon our war debt. If that were the case, this year we would have to raise under the heading of war taxes $20,000,000 more to meet our annual war expenditures, and another $70,000,000, the amount applied on war

The Budget-Mr. Fansher (Lambton)

debt, or a total of $90,000,000. That $90,000,000 has to be taken from other sources of revenue, and it simply means that out of the $248,000,000 provided by customs tariff and excise duties we have to take $90,000,000 to meet our expenditures on war account, and to make our annual reduction in war debt.

As I said a moment ago, to my mind war taxes should meet war expenditures. In 1927 and 1928 we had large reductions in the income tax, the sales tax has been reduced year by year, and in no financial statement that has been presented have we ever received sufficient revenues to meet war account. The income tax should be put back where it was before 1927. The sales tax is being continually reduced and it is one of the most direct means of raising revenue with the least expense. It often appears curious to me why we should be persistently reducing the income tax and the sales tax, while the customs tariff, the tax that the Liberal party specified they would reduce, has not received any material reductions during the life of this parliament. If the reduction in war taxes goes on each year, we will soon be faced with the fact that we shall have to take half the revenue derived from customs and excise duties to meet our deficit on war account. And then we shall soon begin to realize what Sir Thomas White meant when he said that the war debt, if it was paid, would be paid out of the top six inches of Canadian soil. If our war expenditures and the reduction of our war debt is to be paid through the customs tariff, we can readily see that the financial burden of the war is going to be placed on the shoulders of the people on the soil, because those on the soil bear most of the tariff burden.

The Minister of Finance says that the policy of this administration is not a high tariff policy, but a low tariff policy. But having said that, he at once proceeds to lower those forms of taxation which do not bear upon the tariff at all, and he leaves the tariff practically untouched. As far as this budget is concerned, it seems to be somewhat of a watchful waiting affair-watching to see what the United States will do at the next session of congress in regard to raising the tariff, and waiting to see how much political capital the Conservative party might make out of such a step if it were taken. To a certain degree I am somewhat in sympathy with this watchful waiting policy. If the government of the day ever had an excuse for not giving tariff reductions, perhaps it has a better one at this session of the house than it has ever had before during the term of this parliament. There are fields in which

the Minister of Finance could, I believe, have implemented some of the promises given in the Liberal platfoi'm of 1919, and one of these I believe to be the lowering of the duty against British goods. Although it might be advantageous to adopt a watchful waiting policy this session as regards the United States. I see no reason why it should not be to our advantage to lower the duty against British goods. Then, too, the policy espoused by the United States is to be directed largely, we understand, against agricultural products. There is therefore a large number of commodities with which they would not concern themselves, and I can see no reason why we should not proceed to give tariff reductions upon some of those commodities upon which the tariff board has already passed. It may be that the government has let the opportune time slip by for giving substantial reductions. I notice that some members on the government side of the house seem to entertain that view, judging by what they have said in this debate. They seem to be fearful that the golden opportunity has passed by. I quote from the speech made by the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan). Speaking in this debate, he said:

I urge upon this government that its duty is to proceed more rapidly along the lines of a well-considered tariff reduction. I urge them again that we can do this kind of thing only in periods of good times. We cannot do it in times of adversity. Now is the golden opportunity. and we should be taking advantage of it. Apparently, however, the government seem inclined to mark time.

The hon. member for South Huron is evidently getting anxious and somewhat fearful lest we have no tariff reductions this year. He almost seems to think that the government has sinned away its day of grace so far as tariff reductions during the life of this parliament are concerned. I notice also in the speech of the hon. member for Lis-gar (Mir. Brown) a somewhat similar sentiment. He has this to say:

From the standpoint of the ordinary consumer I confess that there is not a very great deal in this budget; it does not contain much meat, of course, but we may be glad that it does not contain any poison.

The hon. member has evidently given up all idea of getting any meat from any of the budgets presented by the Minister of Finance, and is now wiling to be thankful if only no poison is adtainistered. I hope that the hon. Minister of Finance will bear in mind these expressions of his supporters when he prepares his next budget.

1214 COMMONS

The Budget-Mr. Fansher (Lnmbton)

I wish to deal for a few minutes with some of the commodities that were considered by the tariff advisory board: It is a well-known fact that the Liberal platform of 1919 enumerates a large number of commodities which they proposed placing on the free list. After enumerating those commodities, of which cement was one, the resolution concludes with this sentence:

The Liberal party hereby pledges itself to implement by legislation the provisions of this resolution when returned to power.

The tariff board has investigated the duty on cement, and anyone who reads the evidence which was taken in that case must come to the conclusion that the manufacturers of cement are not entitled to tariff protection. I find that during the last year for which I can get complete returns, there was imported into this country 73,652 hundredweight of cement, on which there was a duty collected of $5,875, or eight cents per hundredweight. There was manufactured1 in Canada, 35,230,527 hundredweight. There was exported 900,000 hundredweight, which left to be consumed in Canada, 34,330,527 hundredweight. Now it can be readily seen that with a duty of 8 cents per hundredweight, the protection furnished on the amount consumed in the home market amounted to $2,746,442. Putting it in another way, that amount of protection is provided, for while the government obtains one dollar in revenue, it provides for the industry, $467, or in the ratio of $1 for the treasury and $467 for the industry. In the light of those figures I can see no reason why we should not 'have had cement placed on the free list in this budget.

Sewing machines have also been investigated by the tariff board. The number of sewing machines imported during the last year for which complete returns are available was 19,929, valued at $593,657, or at an average price of $30 per machine. The duty collected was $161,953, or an average duty of $8.12 on each sewing machine. The Bureau of Statistics inform me that only one company manufactures this machine in Canada, and hence they could not furnish me figures giving the number off machines manufactured. But they did give me the value of those exported, namely, $3,464,098. Reckoning each machine at a value of thirty dollars, we find that 1,135,469 machines were exported.

I may say that I have selected some of these articles because they are in general use, and

the following tabulations will, I believe, be of interest to the house:

Stoves, coal, wood and oil

Imports $ 506,410

Duty collected 126,382

Percentage 24.95

Total manufactured in Canada. 5,675,202

Exported 114,482

Used in Canada 5,560,720

Protection afforded 1,390,180

Ratio 1 to 11

That is, for every dollar received by the treasury eleven dollars was provided the protected manufacturers.

Furniture is very necessary to the settler, and in fact to every citizen. What do I find in regard to furniture manufactured entirely from wood? These are the figures:

Imported into Canada $ 2,271,777

Duty collected thereon 634,980

Percentage of duty 28

Manufactured in Canada.. .. 35,733,818

Exported 296,778

Used in Canada 35,437,040

For every hundred dollars' worth of furniture imported twenty-eight dollars was collected in duty. It is obvious that every time a hundred dollars' worth of furniture is manufactured in Canada there is provided by way of protection to our furniture manufacturers an equal percentage, amounting to $9,922,371. The ratio between the treasury and the manufacturer is 1 to 15.7.

Now let me give some figures with regard to enamelware. The conditions surrounding the manufacture and sale of this commodity have been examined by t'he tariff board, and anyone who reads their report can come to no other conclusion, it seems to me, than that the

tariff duty should be reduced. Here are the figures:

Imported $ 314,369

Duty collected 100,778

Percentage -32

Total manufactured in Canada. 2,171,384

Exported 32,882

Used in Canada 2,138,502

Protection afforded 684,320

Ratio 1 to 6.8

I have similar figures relating to cutlery most of which we import.

Imported $1,401,801

Duty collected 341,265

Percentage 24.34

Total manufactured in Canada. 693,100

Exports 958

Used in Canada 692,042

Protection afforded 169,443

We collected 24.34 per cent on a million and a third dollars' worth of these imported goods in order to protect less than naif of that amount manufactured at home.

The Budget-Mr. Fansher (Lambton)

Now, the total duties collected on these five commodities, leaving out sewing machines, amounted to $1,209,280, and the protection provided represented $14,912,756, or a ratio of 1 to 12. Why do I mention these commodities? Largely because they are required by the immigrant and by the settler, and it seems to me that the protection afforded has a direct bearing upon our immigration problem. For years past this government and its predecessors have in their efforts to attract settlers given assisted passages to intending immigrants from the old country and in some cases provided what may be termed readymade farms. We have gone to this expense to bring in immigrants, but we have failed to tell them that when they proceed to furnish their homes with these necessary commodities, no matter whether they buy imported goods or goods made at home, they will be taxed at the high rates that these figures disclose. It seems to me that as a complement to our immigration policy it would 'be advisable to place these commodities on the free list or as nearly so as possible and thereby reduce the purchase price to the intending settler.

We have heard a good deal in this house about prosperity. Some say we have it, some say we have it not; some want to know what it is and others, where it is. It depends a good deal on whom you ask as to what answer you will receive. If you ask the

banker, he will say yes; ask the broker, he also will say yes, we have prosperity; ask the manufacturer and he will say the same thing. But ask the farmer and he will invariably say, no. I am glad to notice that in this house there has been somewhat of a change in attitude towards the farmer and farmers' rights. I well remember that during the fourteenth parliament the members in this section of the house were termed calamity howlers because they persisted in pointing out the plight agriculture was in. Some were termed the Jeremiahs from the west. But I observe that to-day large numbers in all parties in the house are agreed that the farmer is not enjoying that degree of prosperity Which he should. On that, most of the members of the house are agreed. And with that idea in mind I turned to the census report, secured from the Bureau of Statistics, and published after the enumeration of 1921. I went over the figures given for the ridings of nearly the whole province of Ontario, taking all that portion lying south of Muskoka, Victoria county and Renfrew-what is known as old Ontario. In that area I find 385 townships, scarcely a single one of which has not witnessed a decline in population. The following table, which gives the figures from 1901 to 1921, will show the decline that has taken place., with increases in a few instances.

Electoral district-

Brant

Bruce North

Bruce South.. i. .

Carleton

Dufferin

Dundas

Durham

Elgin East

Elgin West

Essex North

Essex South

Frontenac

Glengarry-Stormont

Grenville

Grey North

Grey Southeast.. .

Haldimand

Halton

Hastings East. - .. Hastings West.. .. Huron North.. .. Huron South. . ..

Kent

Lambton East.. .. Lambton West.. ..

Lanark

Leeds

Lennox-Addington..

Lincoln

Middlesex East.. . Midlesex West.. ..

Number of townships

9

8 6 6 6

3

10

6 5

7 9

4

13 10

8 8 8

5

14 10 14

8 5

Loss in population 1901-1921 950 7,131 7,605 3,268 5,050 3,975 3,425 909 3,999 1,977 1,418 4.138 3,071 3,321 6,860 10,743 2,651

4.017

3.990 6,507 5,791 3,905

6.017 5.171 4,519 4,675

3.991

2.301

5,191

Gain in population 1901-1921

4,965

1216 COMMONS

The Budget-Mr. Fansher (Lambton)

Electoral district-

Norfolk

Northumberland.. ..

Ontario North

Ontario South

Oxford North

Oxford South

Peel

Perth North

Perth South

Peterborough East.. Peterborough West..

Prescott

Prince Edward. . ..

Russell

Simcoe North

Simcoe East

Simcoe South

Waterloo North.. .. Waterloo South.. ..

Welland

Wellington North.. Wellington South.. .

Wentworth

York North

Number of townships

8

5

5

6 9 7 7

7 6 5

6 3 3

8 G 6 8 5

Loss in population 1901-1921 4,342 4,816 2,068

2,497

1,742

2,967

3,149

2,701

2,176

1,830

3,844

5,509

2,504

880

4,764

2,248

1,404

Gain in population 1901-1921

1,142

10,019

10,150

Total..

385 177,744 27,311

Net loss

150,433

It will be seen that the total decrease in that twenty-year period is 177,744, while the increases in a few townships total 27,311. But those increases are due entirely to the overflow from cities like Hamilton, which have extended into the townships.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Full View Permalink

March 6, 1929

Mr. FANSHER (East Lambton):

Mr. Speaker-

Topic:   NATURAL RESOURCES
Subtopic:   PROPOSAL THAT DISPOSITION BE EFFECTIVE ONLY ON APPROVAL OF PARLIAMENT
Full View Permalink