1924-05-07

BILLS PROPOSED TO AUTHORIZE THE CONSTRUCTION OF BRANCH LINES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. S. CAHILL (Pontiac) presented the fourth report of the select standing committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines as follows:
Your committee have considered the following bills and have agreed to report the same without amendment:
Bill No. 32, an Act respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line between Sunnybrae and Guysborough in the province of Nova Scotia.
Bill No. 63. an Act respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line between Lockeport station and the town of Lockeport in the province of Nova Scotia.
Bill No. 64. an Act respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from the end of the China Clay branch to St. Remi d'Amherst, in the province of Quebec.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. G. RAYMOND (Brantford) presented the first report of the special committee appointed to make inquiry into an old age pension system for Canada, recommending that they be given leave to have the proceedings of the committee printed from time to time when deemed advisable, and that rule 74 be suspended in relation thereto.
On motion of Mr. Raymond the report was concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Petitions were presented from certain members of the following congregations, severally praying that the proposed legislation incorporating the United Church of Canada be not enacted:
Avondale Presbyterian Church, Tillsonburg; Knox Presbyterian Church, Norwich.

Mr. Sutherland.
St. David's Presbyterian Church, Campbell-ville.-Mr. Anderson.
St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Guelph; St. Paul's Presbyterian Church, Guelph; Presbyterian Church of Salem; Knox Presbyterian Church, Elora; St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Village of Fergus.-Mr. Guthrie.
John Street Presbyterian Church, Belleville; St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Belleville. -Mr. Porter.
Zion Presbyterian Church, Hull, Quebec; Knox Presbyterian Church; Glebe Presbyterian Church; Chalmers Presbyterian Church; St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church; Erskine Presbyterian Church; Bethany Presbyterian Church; Stewarton Presbyterian Church, all of Ottawa.-Mr. McGiverin.
First Presbyterian Church, Chatham; St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Chatham.-Mr. Murdock.
St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Stratford; Atwood Presbyterian Church.-Mr. Rankin.
>
COMMONS
United Church oj Canada-Petitions
Avonmore Presbyterian Church; St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Martintown.- Mr. Kennedy (Glengarry and Stormont).
St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Cree-more; Presbyterian Church, Dunedin; Presbyterian Church of Nottawasaga.-Mr. Ross (Simcoe).
Division Street Presbyterian Church, Owen Sound; Erskine Presbyterian Church, Mea-ford; Knox Presbyterian Church, Owen Sound; Union Presbyterian Church, Owen Sound - Mr. Duncan.
St. James Presbyterian Church, Yarmouth, Ontario.-Mr. Stansell.
Dunnville Presbyterian Church, Ontario.- Mr. Senn.
St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Lindsay, Ontario.-Mr. Thurston.
Kew Beach Presbyterian Church, Toronto.- Mr. Harris.
St. Paul's Presbyterian Church, Lakeport; St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Cobourg.
St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Colborne; Hastings Presbyterian Church.-Mr. Maybee.
Vista Presbyterian' Church, Manitoba-Mr. Hudson.
St. Paul's Presbyterian Church, Sault Ste. Marie; St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Sault Ste. Marie.-Mr. Simpson.
Knox Presbyterian Church, Cannington.- Mr. Halbert.
Morningside Presbyterian Church, Swansea; Long Branch Presbyterian Church; Old Presbyterian Church, of Weston.-Sir Henry Drayton.
Prescott Presbyterian Church; Cardinal Presbyterian Church; St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Barrie; Simcoe St. Paul's Presbyterian Church; Bradford Presbyterian Church.-Mr. Boys.	*
Knox Presbyterian Church, of Port Elgin. -Mr. Malcolm.
Bristol Brick Presbyterian Church, Wyman, Quebec.-Mr. Cahill.
Central Presbyterian Church, Galt; St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Hespeler.-Mr. Elliott (South Waterloo).
Arnprior Branch of the Presbyterian Women's League; St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Renfrew; St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Arnprior; Oxford Mills Presbyterian Church.-Mr. Low.
St. Andrew's Church and Chalmers Church, both of Quebec; St. Andrew's Church of Levis, and the Presbyterian Church of Charny. -Mr. Power.
St. Matthew's Church of Montreal, in connection with the Presbyterian Church in Canada.-Mr. Walsh.

Knox Presbyterian ' Church, Belmont.-Mr. Hodgins.
Westboro Presbyterian Church, Ottawa; St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, of Carp.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church; Alexandria Presbyterian Church, Brantford-Mr Good.
Magnetawan Presbyterian Church, Ontario. -Mr. Arthurs.
Knox Presbyterian Church, Port Dover, Ontario.-Mr. Wallace.
Emmanuel Presbyterian Church, Cowan Avenue Presbyterian Church, Rosedale Presbyterian Church, all of Toronto.-Mr. Sheard.
Westminster Presbyterian Church; Knox Presbyterian Church; St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church; St. Paul's Presbyterian Church ; Central Presbyterian Church; Erskine Presbyterian Church; St. John's Presbyterian Church; McNabb St. Presbyterian Church, Hamilton.-Mr. Stewart (Hamilton).
St. John's Church, and First Presbyterian Church, of Brockville; St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Gananoque; Lansdowne Presbyterian Church; Chalmers Presbyterian Church, Cooke's Presbyterian Church, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, all of Kingston, Ont. -Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Cobden and Wolftown Presbyterian Church; Calvin Presbyterian Church; Alice and Peta-wawa Presbyterian Church, all of Pembroke; Calvin Presbyterian Church, Pembroke; Beach-burg Presbyterian Church.-Mr. McKay.
Davenport Road Presbyterian Church; College St. Presbyterian Church; Eglinton Presbyterian Church; North Broadview Presbyterian Church; Oakwood Presbyterian Church; West Presbyterian Church; St. James Square Presbyterian Church; St. Columbia Presbyterian Church; Westminster Presbyterian Church; St. Paul's Presbyterian Church; Alhambra Presbyterian Church; Dale Presbyterian Church; Knox Presbyterian Church; Old St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church; Bloor St. Presbyterian Church; Deer Park Presbyterian Church; Victoria Presbyterian Church; St. David's Presbyterian Church; Glebe Presbyterian Church; River-dale Presbyterian Church; Avenue Road Presbyterian Church; Cook's Presbyterian Church; Dovercourt Road Presbyterian Church; Royce Avenue Presbyterian Church, all of Toronto.- Mr. Church.
Knox Presbyterian Church, of St. Mary's, Ontario.-Mr. Forrester.
Dufferin Presbyterian Church, Toronto.- Mr. Spence.

United Church of Canada-Petitions
Presbyterian Church of Lucknow, Ontario. -Mr. Findlay.
St. Paul's Presbyterian Church, Vancouver, B.C.-Mr. Clark.
Knox Presbyterian Church, Port Arthur, Ontario,-Mr. Kennedy (Port Arthur and Kenora).
Petitions were presented from certain members of the following congregations and bodies severally praying that the bill now before the House to incorporate the United Church of Canada be passed during the present session :-
Quarterly Official Board of the Ashfield Methodist Circuit.-Mr. King (Huron).
Methodist congregation of Sussex, N.B.- Mr. Caldwell.
Presbyterian congregation of Merivale.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
James Williams and others of Springfield.- Mr. Stansell.
Shawville Methodist Church.-Mr. Cahill.
Copper Cliff, Ontario.-Mr. Lapierre.
Kerrisdale Presbyterian Congregation, Vancouver, B.C.; Tolmie Street Methodist Congregation, Vancouver, B.C.; Mount Pleasant Methodist Congregation, Vancouver, B.C.- Mr. Ladner.
Colbourne Street Methodist Church, London; First Congregational Church of Hamilton, Seagrave; Methodist Churches at Brooke Township and Bethcsda; Methodist Church at Innerltip; Methodist Church at Dorchester; Methodist Church at Smithville; Congregational Church at Guelph; Union Church at Powassan; Union Church at Douglas, Manitoba; Session of Knox Church, Owen Sound; Presbyterian Church at Mono Mills; Methodist Church, Fenelon Falls; Norfolk Street Methodist Church at Guelph; Methodist Church in Paisley; Elderton Methodist Church, London District; Birr Methodist Church, London District; Methodist Congregations at Verona, Bellrock and Godfrey; Glenmount Methodist Church, Toronto; Bathurst Street Methodist Church, Toronto; First Presbyterian Church School, London; St. Andrew's Church, London; St. James Presbyterian Church, London; First Presbyterian Church, London; Presbyterian, Methodist and Con-gregationalists, London; Methodist Churches at Dunsford, Bryanston and Ebenezer.-Mr. Pritchard.
Methodist Churches at Westover, Sheffield and Rockton; Tomlinson Methodist Church
at Humberside; Southern Congregational Church, London; Congregational Churches at New Durham and Burford; Sherbourne Street Methodist Church, Toronto; Methodist Churches at Bronte, Palermo; Methodist Churches at Auburn and Westfield; Methodist Church at Chatham; Methodist Church at Stouffville; United Churches at Cobalt who have had a Union of the Presbyterian, Methodist Congregations; S. N. Fripp and 80 others of Forest; Congregational Church at North Plympton; Methodist Churches at Grand Bend; Methodist Church at Wooler; Methodist Congregation at Louisville Circuit, Chatham Township; Methodist Churches at Denbigh and Vennachar; Kingsville Methodist Church; Methodist Church at Watford, East Lambton; Methodist Church at Mount Albert.-Mr. Woods.
Kirkton Methodist Church, Perth county; Knox Presbyterian Church at Shelburne; Argyle and Knox Presbyterian Congregations at West Lome and Ciman; Methodist Church at Wiarton and Ottewell; Methodist Churches at Ebenezer, Sheppardton and Nile; Methodist Churches at Kinloss, Bervie and Purple Grove; Methodist Church at Westwood; Chalmers Presbyterian Church at Woodstock, Methodist Church at Delaware; Avenue Road Presbyterian Church at Toronto; Methodist Church at Napanee; Methodist Church at Thorndgde; United Churches at Gravenhurst; Methodist Church of Westport. Official Board of the Methodist Church at Jordon Station; Members and Elders of the Board of Management of the United Presbyterian and Methodist Churches at Claremont; Methodist Church at Harrow; Childerhose Memorial Presbyterian Church at Depot Harbour; Methodist Churches at Pickering and Audley; Simpson Avenue Methodist Church at Toronto; Methodist Church at Anjherstburg; Earlscourt Methodist Church, Toronto.-Mr.- Sexsmith.
Reverend Charles A. Pekin of Glenallan; Methodist Church at Londesboro; Methodist Church at Lions Head; United Church at Kenville, Man.; United Churches at Table Butte, Stavely and Parkland; Union Church at Vanscoy, Sask.; Methodist Industrial School at Brandon, Manitoba; Methodist Churches at Howard, Stoughton and Walton; Presbyterian Church in Carroll and Nesbitt; Union Church at Cypress River, Manitoba; Union Church at Moline, Manitoba; Union Church at Plumas, Manitoba;
1832	COMMONS
United Church oj Canada-Petitions
United Church at Deloraine, Manitoba; Union Congregations at Kentville, Harlington and Thunderhiil; Union Congregation at Sheguian-dah; Quarterly Official Board of the Methodist Church, Souris, Manitoba; United Church at Sperling, Manitoba; Methodist Church at Oil Springs, Ontario; Presbyterian Church at Roseisle.-Mr. Good.
Methodist Church at Heathcote; Methodist Church at Alton; Methodist Church at Flesher-ton, Ontario.-Mr. Spencer.
Wesley Methodist Church, Chesley, Ontario; Methodist Church at Shelburne, Ont; Broadview Congregational Church, Toronto, Ontario.-Mr. Sexsmith.
Methodist Church at Kemble, Ontario; First Methodist Church at St. Catharines, Ontario; Chalmers- Congregation at Kingston; Presbyterian Church at Wyevale; Methodist Church at New Liskeard, Ontario; Methodist Church at Mai ton, Ontario; Queen Street Methodist Church, Kingston, Ontario; Churches at Wal-aemar, Laurel and Blacks Corners, Ontario; Methodist Church at New Toronto, Ontario; Clinton Street Methodist Church, Toronto, Ontario; Princess Street Church at Kingston, Ontario; Union Church at Portsmouth, Ontario; Methodist Church at Brighton, Ontario; Methodist Churches at Morrish and Wesley-ville.-Mr. Spencer.
Sharon Methodist Church, Delaware Township, Ontario; Byron Church, London, Ontario; Queen Street Methodist Church at Toronto, Ontario; Broadway Tabernacle, Toronto, Ontario; Methodist Church at Putnam, Ontario; Members of Grove, Zion and Siloam Methodist Congregations, Siloam Circuit, Ontario; Robinson Memorial Methodist Church, London, Ontario; Presbyterian Church at Callander; St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church at Mattawa; Methodist Congregation at Zion (Drayton), Ontario; Methodist Churches at Keene, Bethel and Zion, Ontario; Presbyterian Churches at Westwood and Keene; United Church at Alma Heights, Lefroy Township, Ontario; Zion Church at Thessalon, Ontario; Methodist Churches at Sulphide, Actinolite and Potter's Settlement; North Street Methodist Church, London, Ontario; Askin Street Methodist Church, London, Ontario; First Methodist Church, London, Ontario; Belmont Methodist Church, Belmont, Ontario; Westminister Methodist Church, London District, Ontario.-Mr. Findlay.
F. T. Shaver and others of Aultsville and other places-Mr. Elliott (Dundas).
Presbyterian Church, Carberry, Man.; Westminster Presbyterian Church, Winnipeg, Man.: Methodist Church, Arden, Man.; Methodist Church, Miami, Man.; Presbyterian Church, at Scotia; Congregational Church, Brantford, Ont.; Methodist Church, Roland, Man.; Victoria Methodist Church, Calgary, Alta.; of Rev. P. F. Langill and 32 others, of Burnside, Manitoba; Methodist Church at Burnside and Macdonald; United Church at Mil-den, Sask.,-Mr. Hudson.
Belmont Methodist Circuit, Ontario; Congregational Church at Forest, Ontario; Methodist Churches at St. Johns, Melrose and Hyde Park, Ontario; Lincoln Road Methodist Church, W'alkerville, Ontario; Marten Presbyterian Church, Marten; Congregational Church at Barrie, Ontario; Union Church, Lyleton, Man.; Westside Methodist Church, Owen Sound, Ontario; Methodist Church, Wellington, Ontario; Presbyterian Church, St. Andrews, Winnipeg, Man.; Union Church, Halkirk, Alberta; Wesley Methodist Church, Clinton, Ontario; United Church at Sintaluta. Sask.; Danforth Aye. Methodist Church, Toronto, Ontario; Presbyterian Church, Wether -hill, Sask.; Methodist Churches at Strafford-ville, Eden and Guysboro and Eden, Ontario; Zion Methodist Church of Ashfield Township, Lucknow, Ontario; Presbyterian Church at Abbotsford, B.C.,-Mr. Stansell.
Methodist Church, Park Hill, Ont.; Methodist Church, Michel, B.C.; Methodist Church. Irma; United Church, Bow Island; Presbyterian Church, Stoughton, Steward and Hill-hurst; Maclean Methodist Mission, Manitoba ; Rosedale Methodist Church, Winnipeg. Man.; Union Church, Glenboro; Unioi Church, Forestburg, Alberta; Methodist Church, Fairlight, Sask.; Mount Pleasant Presbyterian Church, Omemee, Ontario; Central Methodist Church, Kleinburg and Noble-ton, Ontario; Methodist Church, Walton, Ontario; United Church, Alexander, Man.; United Church, Waskada, Manitoba; Methodist Church, Bright and Bethel, Ontario; Presbyterian Church, Emo, Ont.; Methodist Church, Verdun, Quebec; Presbyterian Church Russel town, Quebec, Union Church at Covey hill, Quebec; Union Church, Wadena, Sask.: Carleton Street Methodist Church, Toronto, Knox Presbyterian Church, Saskatoon, Sask.; Methodist Church at Laurel, Ontario; Park-dale Methodist Church, Toronto, Ontario; Presbyterian Church, Graysville, Man.; Ger-rard Street Methodist Church, Toronto, Ontario-Mr. Hammell.

Questions
Union Church at Elgin, Manitoba; Metho-d'st Church at Omemee, Ontario; Methodist Church, Uxbridge District, Ontario; Westminster Presbyterian Church, Saskatoon, Sask.; United Church at Kenmay; Methodist Church in the Orton Circuit; Crediton and Ailsa Craig Circuit of the Methodist Church at Cred'ton, Ontario; Presbyterian Church at Priceville, Sask.; Methodist Church at Wakefield and Masham, Que.; Union Church at Bowden, Alberta; Methodist Church at Whitby, Ont.; Methodist Church at Innisfree, Alberts; United Church at Merna, Alberta; Methodist Church at Silverdale and Centenary; Presbyterian Congregations at Dum-mer, Wagner and Truax Presbytery, Weyburn, Sask.; Knox Presbyterian Church at Mitchell, Ont.,-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Methodist Church at Sherbrooke, Quebec; Presbyterian Union Church at Sturgeon Falls and Cash Bay; Methodist Church at Bee-ton,. Ontario; Methodist Church on Oil City Circuit, Ontario; St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church at Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario; United Presbyterian and Methodist Congregation at South River, Ontario; Methodist Church at Mervale, Ontario; Union Churches at Ems-dale, Ontario; Methodist Church at Cannif-ton, Ontario; Union Church at Delburne, Alta.; Methodist Congregation at Stirton, Goshen and Goldstone, Ontario; Union Church at Bowsinan; Union Church, Togo, Sask.; Methodist Churches at Huttonville and Churchville; Union Church at Kelwood, Manitoba; Methodist Church on the Bath Circuit; Napanee District; Bartonville Congregation of Bartonville Church; of the Stone Church Congregation at Barton Township and Burkholder Church at Barton Township; Hyatt Avenue Methodist Church at London, Ontario,-Mr. Wallace.
Methodist Church at Lambeth, Ontario,- Mr. Hammell.
Presbyterian Church, New Mills, N.B.; Methodist Church at Maidstone, Ontario; Knox Presbyterian Church, Galt, Ontario; Grace Methodist Church at Essex, Ontario ; Knox Presbyterian Church at London, Ontario; Eastern Methodist Church at Ottawa, Ontario; Methodist Churches at Bethel, St. Lawrence and Maple Grove, Ontario; Presbyterian Church at Springside, N.S.,-Mr. Hatfield.
Methodist Church at Belwood, Ontario; Union Church, Kisbey; Union Church, Bul-yea, Sask.; St. Paul's Methodist Church Walkerton, Ontario; Methodist Church, Milverton, Ontario; First Presbyterian Church, Camrose, Alta.; Methodist Churches at King. Laskey and Teston, Ontario; Union Church, 365 DePsle street, Montreal, Que.; Presbyterian Church, Madawaska; George Street Methodist Church at Collingwood, Ontario,- Mr. Hammell.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally .are indicated by .an asterisk)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	What was the total amount of sales taxes collected in each province in each of the years 1922 and 1923?
2.	What was the cost of collection of such taxes in each province ?
3.	What is the number of firms and individuals by provinces who have not paid sales taxes and what the amounts due by provinces, on the first of February, 1924?
4.	What steps have been taken to collect such taxes from firms in default, if any?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: 1. Sales Tax Collected in Each Province during the Calendar Years 1922 and 1923
Province	1922	1923	Imported goods	Domestic goods	Imported goods	Domestic goodsNova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Prince Edward Island	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia	
Yukon	$ cts. 546,880 52 614,824 13 37,613 06 6,871,770 90 12,292,828 22 1,505,506 21 377,700 87 390,231 95 2,212,945 78 20,545 73	$ cts. 955,186 57 911,356 09 66,378 21 17,121,086 42 29,472,408 72 2,923,849 22 803,207 48 1,194,120 92 2,753,554 10 1,332 50	8 cts. 632,480 09 698,885 86 34,601 33 9,004,581 40 16,245,604 01 1,857,930 58 540,378 29 573,078 48 2,746,353 37 21,214 68	$ cts. 1,244,680 09 1,141,507 90 71,944 27 23,827,120 62 37,032,514 32 3,476,140 94 9S1,835 74 1,532,540 69 3,483,430 79 2,146 36
2. It is not possible to state separately the from other taxes and duties collected by the cost of collection of sales tax as distinguished Department of Customs and Excise.

Questions
3.	It is not possible to state the amount of sales tax due by provinces, as at 1st February, 1924, as audits have not been completed to that date.
	ci T1	S 0 V	
Provinces	Total arr three mo: and unde	Total arr over thre months	O T3 S a 0Nova Scotia	36	103	139Prince Edward Island	8	8New Brunswick .. ..	14	14	28Quebec	377	870	1,247Ontario	169	938	1,107Manitoba	25	156	181Saskatchewan.. .	21	75	96Alberta	15	78	93British Columbia.. ..	47	224	271704	2,466	3,170
Of the 2,466 firms and individuals in arrears of sales tax for a period of over three months, 431 are retail bakers and confectioners who have refused to pay sales tax pending the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rex vs. Versailles Sweets; 442 are cases of firms and individuals in liquidation; 363 firms and individuals are paying arrears by instal-. ments and prosecutions have been entered in 463 cases.
In the balance of the cases the department is corresponding with the firms and individuals concerned with a view to making satisfactory Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:
arrangements for payment of arrears before legal action is taken.
These latter cases require nursing as drastic action would probably result in financial failures.
4.	In default of satisfactory arrangements for payment of arrears legal action is taken.


STAMP TAX COLLECTIONS
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: How much money was collected under the stamp tax on cheques, notes, drafts, bills of exchange, statements of overdrafts, money orders and receipts (a) during the months of November to March, inclusive, of the fiscal year 1922-23 and (b) during the same period of the fiscal year 1923-24?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: Department of Customs and Excise-November 1, 1922 to March 31, 1923, $2,530,696,35; November 1, 1923 to March 31,	1924

Post Office Department-Proceeds of stamp tax on money orders:
(a) $101,286.08; (b) $113,485.76.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-ADVANCES
Mr. RYCKMAN:: 
MR. SANFORD EVANS
Mr. HAMMELL:: 1. Was Sanford Evans, of Winnipeg, employed at any time by the Dominion government during the last twelve years?
2.	If so, by whom, and under which department of the Dominion government ?
3.	What services did he render, and in what capacity did he work?
4.	What remuneration, salary or wage did he receive in toto from the Dominion government?
Questions


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: Department of Public Works-
1.	Yes.
2.	By commission under order in council of March 18, 1914, and under supervision of Department of Public Works.
3.	He was employed as chairman of the Georgian Bay Ship Canal Commission which reported on the economic and other advantages of the proposed Georgian bay ship canal.
4.	$18,130.
Department of Marine and Fisheries-
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Royal commission dated 2nd July, 1917; (b) Department of the Naval Service (Fisheries branch).
3.	Comissioner and chairman "Special Fishery Commission, 1917."
4.	$2,925.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-RADIO BROADCASTING STATIONS
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	What amount has been expended to the 31st of March, 1924, by the Canadian National Railway Company for radio broadcasting stations and equipment ?
2.	Has such amount been charged to capital expenditure?
3.	If so, under what authority and from what moneys was the sum taken and what vote of par-1 iament ?
4.	From whom was such radio equipment purchased, were tenders called for and were purchases made by tender or otherwise from the Northern Electric Company?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	821,941.12.
2.	Yes.
3.	This expenditure was authorized by vote of parliament No. 139.
4.	The broadcasting station at Ottawa was erected under contract, with the Northern Electric Company, it being considered to the best interests of the Canadian National Railways to have this firm undertake this work. Other radio equipment and supplies have been purchased from the following companies:
Beatty Bros., Montreal.
Bartram, Robt. W., Montreal.
Continental Equipment Co., Ltd., Montreal.
Canadian General Electric Co., Ltd., Montreal.
Devoe Switch Co., Montreal.
Hart Battery Co., Montreal.
Jack, James, Co., Montreal.
Millen, John and Sons, Montreal.
Myers, F. B., Ltd., Montreal.
Munderlich and Co., Montreal.
Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. of Canada, Montreal.

Northern Electric Co., Ltd., Montreal.
Phillips Electrical Co., Eugene F., Montreal.
Radio Ltd., Montreal.
Radio Distributors, Montreal.
Steel Co. of Canada, Ltd., Toronto.
Canadian Independent Telephone Co., Toronto.
De Forest Radio Corporation, Ltd., Toronto.
In all cases where practical the purchasing department called for bids, the business being distributed to the best advantage of the company.


MEMBERS' STENOGRAPHIC SERVICE
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	What are the names of those who, with the exception of the stenographers and typwriters at the service of members, are employed, in connection with that branch, as chief, assistant chief, messenger, etc., and what are their respective salaries?
2.	Are there any who are bilingual? If so, what are their names and salaries?
3.	Who are those who, among the chief, assistant chief, and messengers of said branch, are in receipt of a yearly salary?
4.	How many employees come under the said chief and assistant chief during recess and what are their names and salaries?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	J. H. Smith, 82,880 per year; no assistant chief; Leonard Hill, desk clerk, 84 per day; W. Copping, junior eldfk, $3 per day; A. Fisher, messenger, $2.50 per day; A. Chene, page-messenger, $1.75 per day.
2.	Two: W. Copping and A. Chene.
3.	One: the chief.
4.	Two: Miss M. E. McEwen, and Mrs. Gameau, at $4 per day.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-PRINCE RUPERT TOWNSITE
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	How many lots in the Prince Rupert townsite are owned by the Canadian National Railways?
2.	How many of the said lots, if any, have been
sold during the past two years?	[DOT]
3.	To whom and at what price have said lots been sold?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	37.
2.	9.
3.	Messrs. S. E. Parker, Chas. K. Ytreberg, J. J. T. Collart, H. F. Wearmouth, John Dybham, and Mary E. Gordon, $7,450.


PICTOU COAL PIER
Mr. JONES:: 1.	What was the cost of dredging operations at the coal pier at Pictou landing during the year 1923?
2.	Is said pier a public wharf?

Questions
3.	If not, by whom is it owned and used?
4.	If said coal pier is a private wharf was the cost of said dredging paid by the owners and if so, to whom was the money paid?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	$13,262.02.
2.	No.
3.	Owned and used by The Acadia Coal Company.
4.	Dredging was done at government eost.


PICTOU HARBOUR DREDGING
Mr. JONES:: 1.	What was the cost of dredging operations performed bv contract at Pxfou harbour, Pictou, Nova Scotia, during the year 1923?
2.	What was the cost of dredging operations performed by the Public Works Department's dredges at Pictou harbour, Pictou, Nova Scotia, during the same year?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	$16,185.93 for dredging at C. N. R. wharf. $13,262.02 for dredging at Acadia Coal
Company's wharf.
2.	Departmental dredge "Fielding" worked all season of 1923 dredging channel at entrance to harbour through Cole Point shoal and Murdock shoal at a cost of $101,259.21.


ABERCROMBIE DREDGING
Mr. JONES:: 1.	Has the contract been awarded for dredging at Abercrombie in the county of Pictou, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, to whom has the contract been awarded?
3.	What is the amount of the contract and what is the rate per cubic yard ?
4.	Were tenders called for?
5.	If so, was the lowest tender accepted?
6.	What other tenders were received and what were the amounts?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	No, but tenders will be called for shortly.
2,	3, 4, 5 and 6. Answered by No. 1.


ST. GEDEON STATION POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	Has the postmaster at St. Gedeon station in the electoral district of Chicoutimi-Saguenay been dismissed?
2.	If so, for what reason?
3.	Who is the newly appointed postmaster and by whom was he recommended?
4.	Have complaints been received against this postmaster since January, 1924, and from whom?
5.	What is the nature of these complaints?
6.	How many were applicants for the postmastership and what are their names?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil) (for the Postmaster General):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Active political partisanship.
3. Leandre	Tremblay-recommended	by
Doctor Edmond Savard, M.P.
4.	No.
5.	See 4.
6.	No applications received.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD
Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: On
the 28th April a question asked by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) was tartly answered. A return from the Department of the Interior was not put in, and I desire now to finish the information.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	How many quarter-sections of Dominion or Crown lands were turned over to the Soldier Settlement Board, free, in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta?
2.	What price was paid by the soldier-settler to the
board for such lands in each of the prairie provinces?


Charles A. Stewart: 1. (a) Dominion lands transferred (paten-		
ted) by Department of Interior to the Soldier		
Settlement Board of Canada under		section 27
of the Soldier Settlement Act.		(Salvage
cases).	No. quarter-	
	sections and	No. of acres
Province	parts thereof	approximateManitoba	. 182	29.120. 157	25,120Alberta	. 316	50,560British Columbia.. .	. 27	4,320(b) Dominion lands	transferred	(patented)by Department of Interior to the Soldier Set-	tlement Board of Canada under	Order inCouncil P. C. 1821,	dated 4th June, 1921,	(at request of settler).	No. quarter-	sections and	No. of acresProvince	parts thereof	approximateManitoba	.. 123	19,680Saskatchewan.. ..	.. 367	58,720Alberta	.. 250	40,000British Columbia..	.. 23	3,680(e) Dominion lands	reserved by Depart-	
ment of Interior for the purposes of the Soldier Settlement Act under authority Order in Council P. C. 2,659, dated 30th October, 1918.
No. quartersections and No. of acres Province	parts thereof approximate
Manitoba	1	56.16Saskatchewan	. 220	33.4S0.1Alberta	
British Columbia.. .	. 311	47,473.75(d) Dominion lands	reserved	(unpatented)
by Department of Interior for the Soldier Set' tlement Board of Canada. (Approximate area).
Porcupine Forest Reserve (Saskatchewan), 221,175 acres. .
Riding Mountain Forest Reserve (Manitoba), 172,200 acres.
(e) Dominion lands covered by Soldier Grant entries. (Approximate area), 1,333,280 acres.



The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
2.	This information to be furnished by the Soldier Settlement Board.


UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS ST. GEDEON STATION POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. DOUCET:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Post Office Department, the Civil Service Commission and all other persons since January 1st, 1921, to date, on the dismissal of the postmaster at St. Gedeon station, Quebec, and the nomination of a new postmaster. Also copies of the investigation that was held, and of the report of the investigators, as well as copies of applications made to the Civil Service Commission for the said postmastership, and all petitions and certificates given in favor of or against any of the applicants.


ANTI-DUMPING REGULATION
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. B. HUDSON (South Winnipeg):: I should like to ask the government if any order in coimcil has been passed cancelling the 5 per cent allowance in the anti-dumping law, and if so, why?


Hon. JACQUES BUREAU (Minister of Customs and Excise):: This is a matter that is dealt, with not by the Goveroor-in-Coun-cil, but by the department. The regulation is a departmental one. The Minister of Customs is the party who suspended the regulation on the 8th April. This regulation was made on the 24th August, 1914. Since the regulation has been passed, a good many protests have been lodged with the department, and in view of the fact that the Department of Customs is now preparing legislation providing for the appointment of a board whose duty it will be to make a special study of taxation, and who will act as advisers to those who are to administer the tax laws as well as to those who are to make them, we have seen fit to suspend the suspension and the old regulation remains in force. But I want to emphasize the fact that the idea which seems to have gone out, that this is a governmental measure, is erroneous. It is not; it is departmental, and your humble servant is the sole and only responsible party. He has no apology to make either.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Is this new board that is to advise on taxation also to advise the government with respect to tariff schedules?


Jacques Bureau: When the bill is brought
' down, it will specify the duties and powers of the board.


Arthur Meighen: I would suggest to the
minister that he let his memory go as far back as 1912.


Jacques Bureau: What for?


Arthur Meighen: He might find some interesting speeches of his own about that time.


Jacques Bureau: In the House?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: I have nothing to take
back. They are all right if I made them.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 6, the debate on the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Acting Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of Ways and Means and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Woodsworth.
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker this budget has
now been before the House for almost the last three weeks with no visible effect except to demonstrate more and more its general acceptability by the Canadian people as the days of the weeks go by. By some parties it is referred to as a low tariff budget, by others it is spoken of as the Robb budget, while ethers again speak of it as a Progressive budget. I think myself that !the larger portion of its friends refer to it as a real Liberal budget, with the accent strongly on the word "real"-a real Liberal budget. You will observe, however, that no one thus far has ever thought of designating it a Tory budget. Mark that. Now, I think we can all sense in the not-too-far-distant future a battle on the tariff. We are lining up our forces for it, and it is well that the issue should be plain; for it is better that we should know exactly what we are fighting about and that the battle line should be clearly defined. So that, whatever else the budget has done, it has certainly effected a distinct cleavage between the low tariff and the higher tariff forces in Canada.
Before entering upon the budget proper I beg to refer very briefly to the environment, the setting in which parliament met on February 29. Prior to that and since the last prorogation our Conservative friends were engaged actively in strong propaganda for the purpose of convincing the people of Canada

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
that this government was not very much good and that it should be replaced by themselves; they said that we were impotent and incapable of doing things. The people were told that on one side of the government was a hostile Senate and on the other a not-too-friendly Civil Service Commission; and that with no majority in the House nothing could be hoped for. That was the impression that was conveyed by hon. gentlemen opposite. Unless some of us have forgotten the kind of propaganda that was engaged in to spread distrust and suspicion among the electors, and in case the House may have forgotten what took place during the recess I will refer to a few passages from speeches made by the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). I am not going to drive them home too forcibly, nor shall I be very harsh; I shall be merely sufficiently effective to bring out the facts of the case. My right hon. friend toured the West and, in Winnipeg, he is reported under date December 17 to have spoken of the King government in this fashion:
The King government has a record of political perfidy unapproached in the history of responsible government the world over,-
Mark you, there are no limitations, there is no reservation, in that indictment-it embraces the whole world.
-because of its record on the tariff and every other subject of importance in relation to which it bound itself by pledges to the people of Canada.
No limitation at all; we are not only the limit, but we exceed the limit in impotency and general perfidy-"perfidy" and "apostasy" seem to be favourite terms in the vocabulary of my right hon. friend, and hon. members may recall that he used the latter expression in reference to my humble self last year when he described me as an apostate in relation to the tariff. I do not know what he will call us on this occasion, but we shall see about that later. About the same time he also addressed a meeting at Three Rivers. The House will remember that my right hon. friend and some of his lieutenants at that time were flitting about the country with wonderful rapidity, being here to-day and there to-morrow. And just shortly after the time he spoke in Winnipeg as I have quoted him, he addressed a meeting in the interesting city of Three Rivers. Let me read as nicely as I can what he said there:
The name of the government is a stench throughout the West to-day-
He had just returned from the West and so he ought to have known. .
-and the concessions they are fishing for are at the price of the rest of Canada, of Canadian industries and Canadian trade.
As to whether the name of the government was at that time, or is now, "a stench" in the West, that is something we shall hear about later. Now, these are not nice things to say, and I shall refer only to one more, just to show that the intention of the opposition seemed to be to sow so much distrust in the minds of restless people that, as they evidently hoped, the government would be crowded off the map. Well, there was a sort of reunion of the Conservative party in Saskatchewan. As you know, that party had got to be pretty limp up there, and a united effort was made by Hon. Robert Rogers, Premier Ferguson, and my right hon. friend, to breathe life into the dead flesh and bones of western Toryism. And that is a big contract. To show that birds of a feather usually do flock together, let me read the following report of the remarks of Hon. Robert Rogers on that historic occasion:
Mr. Rogers said that the people of Saskatchewan, never having enjoyed the benefits of a Conservative government, were living in darkness. This was the time to correct that situation. "You have as Liberals in Saskatchewan," he wrent on, "as unscrupulous men as there are anywhere in the Dominion of Canada."
There is no equivocation about that; none whatever. Well, having read these things I have come to the conclusion that they were not really intended seriously; I do not think they can be considered as having much more than political significance. These gentlemen were on the stump and were obliged to make a showing, and so this is what they said. I do not think that they believed it themselves. Every time we meet here after a recess we gather together as good friends, and if I thought for a moment of my hon. friends what from their language they would give us the impression that they think of us, why, I would not be so friendly with them. But I rather like them-right where they are. Now, so much for that; let us forget it. Indeed1, I am sure that some of my hon. friends opposite would like to forget it because it is nothing but a blunder; the people did not accept it. The trouble is that my hon. friends overdid it; and speaking for myself, I want no better campaigners in the interests of the Liberal cause in the West than that trio. Those gentlemen did far more good for us than the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and I did in the effort we put forth. And we had a good time. Let us see what occurred later on. They seemed to be encouraged by the victories they

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
won. in Halifax and Kent; and so no wonder they were on their toes thereafter. What with themselves and their press they had the whole of Canada in a remarkable state of expectancy as to what was going to happen when the House convened on February 29; everybody was speculating as to what was going to take place. Not only that; various dark rumours were being whispered around that something was going to befall some members of the government. I do not know who it was that had the brand on him, but three or four cabinet ministers seemed to be under suspicion, and there was an undercurrent of feeling that anything was apt to happen. These were the conditions under which parliament met, when our friends of the opposition were almost elevated into the third heaven of hope. What as a matter of fact did happen? Well, the first crack out of the box was the Speech from the Throne, and instead of seeing the whitening gills of the government, as the leader of the opposition has spoken of, we had the pleasure of witnessing the blanched faces of the opposition when the Speech was delivered. And from that affrighted state they have not to this day recovered.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell


William Richard Motherwell: Our two friends here know there is nothing else to do but to laugh. The Conservative Organizer (Dr. Tolmie) is not laughing. He knows what it means. That is the fourth blow.


Henry Lumley Drayton: You are losing
your good joke; he is not here.


William Richard Motherwell: The next one is a
joke.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is all a joke.


William Richard Motherwell: But it is a real
joke on my friends opposite-but I will come to that later. Let me refer to the statement of the Massey-Harris Company in yesterday's Citizen. Fhe manufacturers on whose behalf our Conservative friends were willing to bleed and, if necessary, to die-of course politically-tell their sympathizers:	Don't worry, friends; keep your
wind to cool your porridge if you like, but we don't want your sympathy; we can get along under this budget. Let anyone examine the concessions that have been given in the way of free raw materials, with the added prospect of the balance of the Crowsnest pass rates coming into force, which is equivalent to a 3 per cent advantage, and he will realize why the manufacturers are not alarmed. Take the tariff rate on binders, reduced from 10 to 6 per cent. That is nearly half, it is true, but by a careful computation the implement manufacturers estimate that if the Crowsnest pass agreement was restored in its entirety it would be equivalent to a 3 per cent advantage to them over the American implement makers. That restores 3 per cent of the reduction of 4 per cent off in duty, and the further advantage of free raw materials will at least make up the difference. The Massey-Harris people are wise. While the public generally are benefited, the Massey-Harris people have not been hurt seriously. We do not intend that they should be. Why should we massacre industry, Mr. Speaker? We never have in the past-why should we do it now? We try to put an even doubletree between the various sections of the community; that is all. That is the series of misfortunes which has overtaken our Conservative friends at every step-a reward for their bad conduct all last summer in going about the country abusing the government! Why, the worst word in their mouth was too good for us over here. But that is the retribution they might expect, and that is what they have got.
Now, -what about the budget itself? Why do not our Conservative friends like it? The simple fact of the matter is that it has got
the Conservative party right on the hip, and that is the reason why they do not like it. Let us examine some of the speeches delivered by my friends opposite. I think the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) has been credited with the best speech thus far from the opposition side-
I should make an exception in favour of the ex-Minister of Finance of course, but outside of him, and what does the hon. gentleman from Fort William say? I had not the .pleasure of being present to hear him, but I read his speech carefully afterwards, and I have it before me now. If I had not read it I would not have believed that my hon. friend with all his geniality and likeable qualities would get off such "bunk." But still, seeing is believing. He asks:
What is the object of the changes in the tariff? Sir, it is simply a mad desire on the part of this government to keep in power at any price. It is an attempt to purchase the votes of the West at the expense of the industrial East.
Because, after the manufacturers have been privileged for fifty years to levy tolls on the farmers of this country and others, we ask them modestly to loosen up a bit, we are told that we are going to destroy them. They have been riding on our backs for fifty years. At last we simply say to them:	Get off and
walk for a little while, try your feet. And the Massey-Harris Company comes back and says:	I will try my feet; maybe I will grow
stronger by that method; the goodwill of the farmer is better for me than any protection I am enjoying at the present time; all right,
I will walk. Here is some more of my hon. friend's speech:
T submit Mr. Speaker, that the whole tariff history of this government has been one of deception, trickery and vote chasing.
That is not as bad as "apostasy" and similar expressions that we have heard from the official opposition at one time and another. But where is the deception? The very first session after the government was formed we did what no other government had done since confederation-we lowered the tariff. You may call the reduction small, but we were that much further to the good than any other government that has preceded us, because none of our predecessors ever touched the tariff at all in their first session. Last session we pursued the same course and increased the British preference. That increase may be said to be small, if you like, but nevertheless it has been appreciated. Indeed, it was said to be sufficiently large to close a number of our mills, and our calamity howlers went up and down the land complaining that this would be the result. Surely there was no

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
deception there on our part. We are beginning to dp slowly what we had endeavoured to do rapidly on three historic occasions and failed, -in 1S78 and in 1891, unrestricted reciprocity, and in 1911 reciprocity in natural products. We endeavoured to go rapidly, but we were told we were going too quickly and we were defeated in each instance. Now we have been reaching out to the same objective by easy stages-so easy the first two years that our action did not meet with very much approval. We have this year balanced our budget, so that we are at liberty to go faster, and we are going faster. We could not go rapidly the first two years, because we would lose too much revenue, but having now balanced our budget, the logical thing to do this year is to speed up. And we have speeded up, there is no trickery about that. It is not a case of selling out to the Progressives, because our platforms are identical. It is obvious that if we take any step to carry out our platform we take a step also toward the carrying out of theirs. Do you suggest that they should run awray in the opposite direction and say "We will not take it from you"? Oh, all this talk about selling out and buying out and messes of pottage-it is all nonsense. Whether or not we should be in two camps is another question, but our platforms are the same and the government cannot carry out its platform without carrying out theirs. The natural thing happened, therefore; they looked upon our budget with favour.
"If you have tears, prepare to shed them now"-because this is the gem of the lot. He says:
Sir, the policy of free trade-
Who is talking about free trade? Look at what the Massey-Harris people said about what is left being the necessary amount of protection. It is down to the minimum of protection; he does not say it is free trade. Our hon. friends coin these phrases for effect. They think that some terrible spectre can be discovered in free trade. What is free trade but natural trade? However we are not discussing free trade; it is not in the budget. But, for the purposes of-shall I charitably say?-argument, the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) uses the term, and he goes on:
-if the people endorse the present changes in the tariff-would finally lead to the economic domination of Canada by the United States. It would then lead to Canada becoming a commercial appendix-
Oh, how familiar that term is.
-a commercial adjunct-

More familiar terms; more resurrected campaign dope of 1911.
-a commercial adjunct, as someone has said, of the United States.
One would hardly think these expressions would have been resurrected, but what else have my hon. friends left to say or do? Some people say that every ten years you have a new batch of people that you can flim-flam, and no doubt there will be a lot of new electors in the next election and apparently my hon. friends are going to take a chance on working these things on the uninitiated, telling them that they are going to be gobbled up by the United States if we deal with the' people to the south any more freely than we are now doing The tariff wall, we will say, is four rails high; if you pull down one rail, ruination will follow; if you leave it where it is everything will be O.K. Did you ever hear such nonsense? If you pull any of it down, they say, we will be gobbled up by Uncle Sam, I am sure that in his quiet moments- and I know my hon. friend must have them like all the rest of us-he will be heartily ashamed of these remarks; anyway I am going to try to make him ashamed of them.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, that kind of
thing works fine; it is very clever. In fact it was the only thing that could have defeated reciprocity, and now they are hoping to turn the trick again with the annexation cry.


Donald Sutherland: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Donald Sutherland: Was there any minimum tariff referred to in the platform of the Liberal party? Was not the 4. p.m. policy advocated of the abolition of the whole tariff on agricultural implements?


William Richard Motherwell: When was that?


Donald Sutherland: In the 1919 platform of the Liberal party.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, of course, but are we not getting there by stages? If you leave us here fifteen years, as the Liberal government was left on the previous occasion, we shall have obtained our object-yes, and before that. Oh, do not be in a hurry, there are more years to come.
Just to show you that the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River is not alone

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
in this campaign, I may point out, Mr. Speaker-and you yourself were in the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier at the time-that when the campaign of 1911 was launched, the Montreal Star, the originator of the "whisper of death," got out a great big front page article with Sir Wilfrid's photograph in the middle of it, imploring him to save Canada from the Americans. And now no less a paper than Saturday Night, a highly respectable publication printed in Toronto, says:
The truth of the matter is that the King administration is actuated by motives difficult to fathom but clear enough in the application.
Here is what this article says about the Prime Minister:
For two years the Prime Minister has been advertising
his endeavours to shake off the "British yoke" in constitutional relations; and he is now inviting the "United States" yoke in our industrial relations.
Well, now, what do you know about that? So there is method in their madness. We might as well be forewarned, because forewarned is forearmed. I am endeavouring to tell the people of Canada to watch these gentry; they do not want any fight on the tariff. As the hon. member for Battleford (Mr. McConica) said the other day in his western style, "If we go to the country on the tariff we will trim you to a feather edge," or words to that effect.
Now, I will not be cruel to the extent of quoting any more of that speech. It is a very readable document; it was very fluently delivered, but it exceeds the limit in nonsense. On the other hand, if I were in my hon. friends shoes, what else could I do? There is nothing left. The longer you examine this budget the more you will find that it is impregnable. Why? Because it lowers the taxes of the people where they want them lowered, with due regard to the revenues of the country; in other words, it is a revenue budget. The reduction has been constant and consistent; there has been no trickery. We have not made our objective, and I do not know whether the people of Canada will leave us, if you like, in power long enough to make it. We hope they will; it is up to them. If what we are doing is acceptable to them, the logical thing is that we shall go along the lines of a revenue tariff. We cannot get away from the revenue idea. Nobody in this country has been preaching absolute free trade, therefore that question is not in issue to-day.
Now let me come to the general attitude of my hon. friends opposite. What do they want, after all? They belong to a school which have always built strongly on the idea of manufacturing, on the idea of industry,-good in itself, but surely not the primary thing in this country. You will never hear them talk about farming except to suggest to our Progressive friends and all western men that they throw away their can openers and grow something else besides wheat. That is all they do, and the less they know about farming the more they urge us to go on to some other system of farming. They talk everlastingly about industry. [DOT] Well, what must their feelings have been when they got that slam from the Massey-Harris Company the other morning? I noticed nothing about it in the Morning Journal, however, or in any other Conservative paper, though I presume it went over the wires of the Associated Press.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Yes, it was in the
Ottawa Journal yesterday.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. gentleman is not sufficiently informed on the subject.


An hon. MEMBER:: He does not want to be informed on that.	[DOT]


William Richard Motherwell: I knew you would not like it at all. Do we Liberals entirely disregard the industries? Not at all, but our primary thought is the development of our natural resources, the first of which is, admittedly, agriculture; then, if you like, lumbering, then mining, then fishing. Which is the correct thing, to forget all about agriculture and think only of building up industry, which after all must be a secondary institution? Why, the early settlers all around Bytown here, one hundred or one hundred and twenty-five years ago, had no manufacturing institutions to support or to get their implements from. They hoed the ground with crude hoes and got their crops in without agricultural implements. I had the pleasure, Mr. Speaker, of seeing a collection of agricultural implements at Budapest some ten or twelve years ago which illustrated the development in implements of agriculture in the course of hundreds of years. Some of these instruments were very primitive indeed, and yet the people who used them managed to grow crops with their aid. I do not want to go back to those primitive aids to agriculture, neither do I want to be made insolvent by buying high-class machinery although high-priced machinery may be necessary in employing the best methods of cultivation today. But there is a happy medium between these two extremes. We believe the primary industries must be given primary consideration; after we have developed them all we can, let us see to the advantage of the manu-

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
factures that are indigenous to the country and get along with reasonable assistance in their early days. By all means develop them, but do not develop them by crucifying the primary industries-that would be a mistake. Some countries must export raw material. How is it that Great Britain became the greatest manufacturing country in the world? Through the medium of her mercantile marine, through her access to the raw materials of the world, through cheap labour, and through a low tariff or no tariff at all. If she has to buy the raw materials that she needs some other nation must sell them, and we in this country are producers, essentially producers, of raw materials. Do not misunderstand me. Do not gather the impression that I say that we should not manufacture any of these raw materials. We should manufacture all of the raw materials possible when we can do so profitably without injury to the rest of the people; but to compel a lot of us to be made the goat in order that other people should profit is a mistaken policy and one that cannot last. We have stood it all these years because in the past there has been enough to go around; but when there is a great war debt to be paid then the burden must be equalized, it must be properly distributed. One of the most hopeful signs of the times to-day is the manner in which the Massey-Harris Company is accepting this budget. They say "All right. If you are going to give us ^ raw materials we will do our best but we rely upon the good will of the Canadian people to patronize Canadian manufactures." And that is right. The manufacturers will get popular support far more quickly in that way than they will by compulsion under a high tariff, because you never can compel people in the long run to assume an obligation if they can evade the obligation at all. Let me say that this is not a western budget alone; it is accepted just as freely in the Maritime provinces, in nearly all Quebec, in a great deal of rural Ontario and some parts of urban Ontario, as it is in the West. It is a budget for the whole of the people, and I am particularly glad that the manufacturers are showing a disposition to accept the situation and try it out. Then later on, if they cannot operate under a budget like this, let us inquire into the situation and see if anything is due to them -not from their former victims but from the state itself. I take this ground: if we have to have industries, and if they cannot support themselves, although that has not been shown yet, then we will accept them

at their own classification-that is that they put themselves in the class of industrial pensioners. I am not doing that, the Massey-Harris firm has not done that; but I take the ground that if our industries are not self-supporting, if they cannot operate, if they cannot navigate the commercial waters of Canada under their own steam as it were, then we should1 devise some other way than that of authorizing them to levy on their customers as they have been doing the last fifty years. If such a proceeding is necessary in Canada's interests, if these manufacturers admit now that they are not self-sustaining and cannot operate without protection, then they become industrial pensioners and should be supported by the state like any other pensioners, and not by their customers upon whom they have been living all these years. When the returned soldiers came back to Canada we were glad to contribute towards a pension for them. But that pension was not levied on any one particular class. When a civil servant is superannuated by parliament the money for his superannuation comes out of the general treasury. Now, if we are going to have industrial pensioners- and I do not believe we are; but if that is the position the industries are in as claimed by our opponents, if they are not self-supporting-then I say that these industrial pensioners should be supported by the state, out of the public treasury, and not by the customers as the practice has been.
Examining into this whole system I doubt very much whether the system of giving the power to levy taxation-and this power has practically been delegated to companies and to manufacturers-is sound at all. I take the ground that the power to impose taxation belongs to the state and the state only. When I say the state I mean either the Dominion, the provincial, or the municipal governments. When we introduce a protective tariff if is a tax which is double-barrelled in its character. One feature consists of a straight tax levied by the state through the medium of the customs. That is one barrel. The other is the excess price that the manufacturers are permitted to charge by reason of the protection which that tariff affords. Virtually these manufacturers adopt a system of taxation whereby they are permitted by law to levy a higher price on their customers. After a person has submitted to such a system all his life that fact is as plain as the nose on a man's face-and that sometimes is fairly conspicuous.
I contend, Mr. Speaker, that the right to tax is a function that should be reserved for the

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
state and for the state alone; and if the manufacturers are to be helped the state should do it and not the individual.
Now, I do not wish to be harsh. I have never taken the ground, in this House that a new industry should not be supported, I have always taken the very opposite ground. I have always held that if an industry was worthy of the name, if it was indigenous to the country with some reasonable likelihood of succeeding, it might be justifiable to lend it some aid in its infantile days, some sort of help that would recede with time, get less and gradually disappear. But I am not satisfied that these industries should be infants for all time. That is the difference between myself and hon. gentlemen opposite. In nature young life requires nursing; I do not care whether it is a human being, a denizen of the jungle or a domestic bird on a farm, infancy always requires to be taken care of; and at this particular time when new industries are established I believe they will require to be taken care of in some way. But what has been the result of the system we have followed in the past? The effect has been to establish a privileged class in Canada that you cannot shake free from protection. That system has grown to such an extent that industries though established for half a century want to continue under it in perpetuity. I see the friendly face of the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George (Mr. Marler), who spoke about the possibility of establishing a "cost of living tariff." I wonder what that means. A cost of living tariff in Montreal would be a sumptuous affair to the man on the prairie or on any of the farms of Canada. Personally I do not know what it means. However, I wish to make myself quite clear on that point-that while I am opposed to protecting institutions after they have got on their feet, I have never opposed at any time in my public career giving some form of reasonable receding assistance to young institutions. That is a vastly different thing to adopting protection as a principle in the case of industries of old age such as has been the system followed in Canada.
When this kind of talk is indulged in we are told by our Conservative friends, "Well, if you would do something else besides growing grain, you would not be putting all your eggs in the one basket, you would not be in the condition you are in now and would be able to get along nicely under the present tariff". I do not think the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie) realized just how his advice sounded when he was handing it to us. I took it to myself, although he directed it to the Progressives
I come from the same part of the country as most of those hon. gentlemen, and his' remarks indicated that he thought the people of the West should farm their property. Of course our farming methods can be improved, that is admitted; but my hon. friends across the way seem to think we do not do anything in the West except grow wheat. Although this is not directly connected with the budget, I would like to disillusionize the House on that question. We are rapidly becoming a general farming community out there; so much so that I am sure some of you who have not seen these figures will be inclined to doubt some of them. My hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) is interested in dairying, but if somebody had said offhand that if the farmers on the prairie produced more butter than the farmers in Ontario, that would be a wild-looking statement. And yet it is a fact. Why all this gratuitous advice to us? They say, "Leave the tariff where it is, and go and throw away your can-opener; get busy at something else rather than wheat growing." The figures I have before me come from the statistical department; I checked them up and I think they are right. Take first the product of butter. The figures are as follows:	-
Product	Province	Per capitaButter ....Alberta	
37	pounds"	Saskatchewan	
30	""	Ontario	
25	"
It is true that part of itheir dairying goes in other directions, but I am speaking only of butter. In the matter of poultry, the figures are as follows:
Product	Province	Per capitaPoultry....Saskatchewan	
11	pounds"	Alberta	
10	""	Ontario	
5	"


Mr. HARRIS:: When the hon. minister
is expounding his view on this matter, will he give the Horae the information per capita, rural and urban?


William Richard Motherwell: We do not take
our census that way.


Joseph Henry Harris: Does he expect the city
people to make butter?


William Richard Motherwell: I will refer the
hon. member to the department. I took the figures as I got them and these are the right figures. Oh yes, these figures spoil all their little song over there; they will have to get some other story, because these figures puncture their story.


Joseph Henry Harris: Will the hon. minister
give us the urban population?.

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell


William Richard Motherwell: There is a statistical branch to which the hon. member can go and get the information. We do not give these figures on any other basis; and furthermore when we give grants it is on a per capita basis, irrespective of urban or rural. The Agricultural Instruction Act was operated on a per capita basis, irrespective of rural or urban population, and I am giving these figures on the basis the census returns are given. I am glad to know that my hon. friend feels he is up a tree.
Speaking of eggs, I have heard my hon. friends talk about eggs all this session, and every time they talk about them they give a culprit-look in this direction, as if I were responsible for there not being more eggs in this country. In the province I come from there are more eggs produced per capita than in the province of Ontario. The figures are as follows:	.
Product	Province	Per capita
Eggs ....Saskatchewan	 46
"	
Alberta	
43"	
Ontario	
24


Donald Sutherland: Does my hon. friend not realize that carloads of eggs have been imported into Ontario during the past three months as a result of thn low tariff on butter and eggs?
Mr.	MOTHERWELL:	That	makes	it
worse.


Donald Sutherland: And that they are
sold cheaper than the Ontario farmer can produce them.
Mr.	MOTHERWELL:	That	makes	it
worse. They should produce more here. That is why they are shy of eggs. "Produce more eggs" says the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland). Why not have less hog cholera? Then we come to hogs. In that commodity Alberta leads again. The figures are:
Product	Province	Per capita
Hogs ....Alberta		1.11
"	Saskatchewan	
0.84"	Ontario	
0.57
Again we find Ontario away down, about half as much as Alberta-.57 per capita. Why can our friends from Ontario not develop the hog industry instead of lagging behind? They are all slaughtered for the cholera in that province.


Donald Sutherland: Would the hon.
minister like an answer to that question?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Donald Sutherland: All you have to do is to refer to the quantity of American pork that is imported into Ontario to answer your question.


William Richard Motherwell: That does not
affect these statistics. These are live hogs. When I took the census return of 1921 it was a great surprise to me, although I knew the position with reference to butter and other articles. I knew that per capita we had more production of butter than any other province. Saskatchewan has the greatest amount of poultry next to Ontario-not merely per capita, but taken as a province. The pork industry has developed there to a remarkable extent, has flooded our eastern market, and to a large extent supplied the New York market last year. So that we are headed right in the direction that our hon. friends are pointing, and they will have to present some other argument than the one they have presented to switch us off the tariff, because it will not work.
Coming to dairy cows; Ontario should excel in this product. I am not speaking of this disparagingly because I know there is a large urban population; but man for man and woman for woman and child for child, we produce more out West than is produced in the eastern provinces. I did not take the figures for the province of Quebec, because I did not want to give the department too much work, and I had to do it in a hurry. I did not take Manitoba, but I believe they would show up much better.


Mr. FORKE:: Sure.


William Richard Motherwell: But I took the two provinces that were looked upon as the greater culprits. Referring to the product of dairy cows, the figures are as follows:
Product	Province	Per capitaDairy Cows	....Alberta	
0.65.. ..Saskatchewan	
0.50.... Ontario	
0.42
The figures for the production of beef cattle are as follows:
Product	Province	Per capitaBeef Cattle ..	..Alberta	
1.75..	..Saskatchewan	
1.39"	..	..Ontario	
0.52I am going to give these figures to Hansard, so as to have them placed correctly on the record, and if anybody desires to check them up with the statistical department he can do so. I checked these statistics twice, so that there would be no doubt about their accuracy.	.
The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
Then we come to manufactured goods. It has been suggested, "If you cannot make this form of production pay, why do you not develop industrial life out there and go into manufacturing?" Well, we are doing so now. There again we are taking their advice. We are also working along the lines of the middle western states of the United States. I do not know that in 'our time we shdll ever be a great manufacturing country, but nevertheless the manufactures that are being developed there are wonderful. I have a list of them before me, and I may as well explain, in reading this statement, that the Statistical department has classified1 the milling industry as a manufacturing industry-and	strictly
speaking, I think that is right-and the packing industry as a manufacturing industry. I merely make that explanation. The milling industry is a manufacturing industry; we manufacture wheat into flour. If we have regard to that, in round figures Alberta manufactures on a per capita basis, $113 worth per capita; Manitoba manufactures $202 worth per capita. Saskatchewan is away down, as we might expect, because it has not devoted so much attention to manufacturing. In Saskatchewan there are no large urban centres and such like. Saskatchewan manufactures only $66 worth per capita; Ontario manufactures $481 worth per capita, and Quebec, $332 worth per capita. It will be noticed that the figures as regards Manitoba are less than one-half of those of Ontario, but they constitute a great deal more than one-third of the manufactured products when you count flour and abattoir. Surely then vre are not doing so badly.


Mr. LADNER:: Has the minister the
figures for British Columbia?


William Richard Motherwell: I am sorry I did
not get those, because it was from British Columbia that we were receiving this kind of advice. I was not so much concerned with British Columbia; that province was not looked upon so much as an agricultural country as some of the other provinces, and I did not ask for the figures for that province. Alberta and Saskatchewan were alleged to be the chief sinners, and as the advice came largely from Ontario, I wanted to make the comparison between the ones that were alleged to be committing this grievous offence of not doing anything but growing wheat, and the ones that were giving the advice. The figures for British Columbia will be interesting, because that province has developed wonderfully along the lines of poultry raising as well
as fruit growing during recent years. Those are the figures, and that is the answer which I would give to those who are trying to becloud the tariff issue by telling us to go into mixed farming. I am not deprecating mixed farming, but I am glad to be able to produce this evidence that the people of the West as well as the people of the East are taking this advice without waiting for it to come from the sources to which I have referred. They are using it, not because they think these hon. gentlemen know anything about agriculture. They do not; they simply put it out as the only line of thought they have in order to try to divert our attention from the tariff.
Long before this budget came down, in fact, last January, I had the opportunity of giving an address in Montreal before the Rotary Club, who were good enough to invite me there, and that club being non-political, I could not mention the word "tariff." I have not a copy of my speech as it appeared in the Montreal Gazette, but I can give the substance of it. The subject of my address was that we should develop the practice of using more of "made in Canada" goods. That was before the House met and in the city of Montreal where this policy would meet with favour, although we might differ as to the best methods of attaining that end. I pointed out that some people believed that the way of attaining that end, that is, the end of having more "made in Canada" goods used, was to shut out other goods-I did not use the word "tariff;" I used the word "restriction" -by excluding goods by restrictive measures. I said that that will not work; that it never has worked. As a matter of fact, while there has been no systematic determination in the West not to use eastern goods, ever since reciprocity was defeated and we were denied the benefits of that market, western men have found it more and more difficult to prevail upon themselves to use eastern goods. That is human nature. That attitude, however, is wearing away. Time heals up those things, and now I have dared to preach in Montreal -I do not know whether they agreed with me or not; they did not look black at me-that trade restrictions will never develop a spirit of using "made in Canada" goods. I will venture to guess-and the same idea was promulgated by the hon. member for Brandon, the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke)-that if they'could see their way to take the stand of the Massey-Harris people, they would double and treble their sales to the Canadian farmers in the next four or five years. Is that not a better policy to pursue than that of sticking us to the full extent of
184S

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
the tariff and then selling cheap implements abroad? Those practices cannot prevail any longer; the people will not stand for them. We have no enmity towards the manufacturers, and this is purely a political question. They tried to make out that we are the enemies of industry and that we think in no other terms than those of agriculture; but the industries themselves have demonstrated right in the midst of this debate what they can do; they have come out in the public press saying: "I am going to accept this tariff, to try it out and to rely upon the fairness of the Canadian farmer to patronize home industry." This is a statement made in the public press yesterday by the Massey-Harris Company:	[DOT]
The new rates, now effective, represent a minimum of protection, and it is believed that apart from goods which are permitted to be imported free of duty, the customs rates now carried by farm implements are lower than those applicable to any other class of imported goods.
It represents the minimum of protection. This is a manufacturer that admits that 6 per cent is protection, that 10 per cent is protection; that 7i per cent, 124 per cent is protection. Our hon. friends opposite take the ground that because this tariff is reduced to as near as one can conceive a revenue basis, it is free trade. That is free nonsense and humbug, for effect. The manufacturers do not designate it as that. They know that every one per cent that is imposed is that much protection although it is revenue producing. Its protective features are incidental; the outstanding feature is that it is revenue producing. Further on the Massey-Harris Company state:
We shall endeavour to adjust ourselves to the new conditions and we will give to the Canadian fanner every possible advantage arising out of the changes made. We rely upon him to do everything within his power to stimulate Canadian industry by the purchase of Canadian-made-machines.
The provisions of the budget which exempt farm implements from the sales tax are most welcome, and these, combined with the lowering of customs duties on raw materials announced in the government's amendments, now enable the manufacturer to make an immediate reduction in his prices.
That is the proper kind of spirit. That is a vastly different spirit from that with which the manufacturers met reciprocity. If they are willing to forget it, I am willing to forget it. We cannot develop Canada to the utmost by harking back to our difficulties and differences. Lft us forget them. This company is a manufacturing concern of outstanding merit. Its implements, notwithstanding reciprocity, I have bought for forty years, and I intend to

continue to buy them; but I, as well as thousands of others, would buy them more freely so long as we are ready to pull on an even and double whipple-tree along with the other industries of Canada.


Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):: the volume of production and provide employment for thousands who to-day are idle, many having been forced to go elsewhere to find work.
I was very much interested in an address by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) who took this matter up in the House on March 31. He pointed out how inconsistent some of these rates were, particularly in regard to coal. After considerable negotiation last year the Canadian National Railway management offered on coal in train lots during certain months a rate of $9 per ton from Drumheller to Toronto, or $450 per carload. My friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland) pointed out that the railroad would carry from Vancouver to any point in Quebec a carload of Epsom salts for $350, whereas they wanted $450 to carry a carload of coal one thousand miles less. On looking into the matter I find that the hon. member is correct. A number of other articles may be instanced on which the rate is lower than that offered on coal. Chinaware, one of the most fragile of commodities, is given a rate from Vancouver to Montreal or any other ocean port of $360 per carload, as against this $450 rate from Alberta to Toronto, a shorter haul by one thousand miles. I have already pointed out that this rate offered on coal was for train lots and at a time when the railroad had very little business; in other words, this traffic would keep their freight cars in use and their men on the job. In this connection I might point out that our importation of coal last year from the United States amounted to 4,840,713 tons of anthracite and 15.072,285 tons of soft or bituminous coal, representing a cost to Canada of over $90,-
000.000. I think, Sir this is one of the most important questions we have to deal with. We must see if there is not some way by which we can stop this leak of $90,000,000, in addition to the payment of heavy railway rates, and so keep the money in Canada for Canadian workmen.


An hon. MEMBER:: Particularly the miners of Nova Scotia.


James Arthurs: Yes, particularly the
miners of Nova Scotia. This brings me to another question, Mr. Speaker, which I think is also more important at the present time than the tariff-the question of emigration and immigration. According to Canadian government reports we have received during the past fiscal year 133,000 immigrants; and according to equally reliable reports of the United States government we have sent to that country alone 183,000 emigrants who

paid the head tax as settlers. We must remember that almost as many men enter the United States who do not pay the head tax-young men who. go over as visitors and do not come back. If the Americans are ready to admit that last year we gave them over
183,000	men, it is a most distressing state of affairs. It has been calculated that the average workingman earns and spends $1,000 each year. If that be true, then Canada last year lost $183,000,000-not only for that year but for all future years while these men stay away. I can remember when it was a common practice in Ontario and other provinces to bonus factories, small towns were always willing to give a considerable bonus to induce a factory to locate with them which would have a pay roll say, of $100,000 a year. Yet our exodus to the United States alone last year would represent the pay roll of two thousand such factories if we could keep those men at home.
Some one has said during the course of this debate that we are losing to the United States immigrants whom we brought in at considerable expense. I think the government have been taking a certain amount ot comfort out of the thought that they were not losing true Canadians, they were just losing immigrants brought over from the various continental countries. But I have in my hand a return of the United States immigration authorities for the fiscal year which ended in June last, showing that during that year there were officially entered, to the United States, 117,011 immigrants from Canada, and they were classified. We must remember that we have no classification as Canadians in our census returns, consequently a Canadian is classed according to the racial origin of his father. Those immigrants were classified as follows by the United States
authorities:
English	 39,295
French-Canadian	 30,438
Scotch	 17,045
Irish	 12,000
Welsh	 656
Or out of a total of 117,011 who proceeded officially from Canada to the United States during the fiscal year over 99,500 were absolutely Canadians who had been brought up in this country for years.


John Warwick King: My hon.
friend, I presume, knows that the figures he is quoting from the returns of the United States immigration bureau are not regarded even by the United States government as

The Budget-Mr. Arthurs
in any way corresponding to the true situation; that the census of the United' States, for example, is entirely different from the showing made by the imlmigration statistics?


James Arthurs: My right hon. friend is
perhaps correct in the main, but he is wrong regarding these particular statistics, because they refer to men who paid the head tax, and consequently must be correct. The men were officially entered as settlers.


Jacques Bureau: All people entering the
United States who pay the head tax do not remain there.


Henry Lumley Drayton: They just go
there to throw away their money.


Jacques Bureau: The head tax is refunded
when they return to Canada.


James Arthurs: Thousands of young men go over who do not pay the head tax, and do not return either. One evidence that we are losing ground so far as immigration is concerned is the returns of settlers' effects inwards and outwards. The value of such effects imported for the fiscal year ending February 1922 was $8,144,000; in 1923 the value had fallen to $6,291,000; in 1924, again to the end of February, there was a further drop to $5,914,000. In other words, we were importing 25 per cent less settlers' effects than we were two years ago. On the contrary, the settlers' effects outwards show a steady increase. In 1922 to the end of February their value was $6,000,000; in 1923, $7,977,000; in 1924, to the end of February again, $10,712,000. Or an increase of 60 per cent. This is one reason why our exports are increasing.


Mr BRISTOL:: Those are the figures relating to settlers' effects going to the United States?


James Arthurs: Yes. I might remark
in passing that the man who takes with him to the United States a quantity of settlers' effects is not a foreigner, he is a man who has had a home here and is taking his household goods with him; he is going there to stay. A pertinent question, I think, is: What is the government doing to remedy this state of affairs, or are they doing anything?


John Warwick King: Yes, lowering the duties on agricultural implements.


James Arthurs: That is the secret of
the whole thing. They are spending millions
of money to bring immigrants from central Europe in an endeavour to replace Canadians who are going to the United States. As a matter of fact they are spending almost half a million dollars a year in the United States on officials whom they keep there to induce Canadians to return home. I do not think folly could reach much greater heights. We are sending to the United States hundreds of thousands of the best of our people-the worst advertisement we can have over there. What I would like to learn from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) is: Will this budget bring back any of these men? Will it makes any wheel turn that is not turning now? No; it will have the opposite effect.' But if hon. gentlemen would put a tariff on, something that would give extra business to our railroads and increase employment in our factories, they would soon find these men coming back to Canada.
The present budget differs from any ever presented in Canada. It was prefaced by an intimation in the Speech from the Throne that certain duties would be lowered. Tne government sat back and listened to some of their own supporters who opposed the lowering of duties and who did not believe that the Speech meant what it said. After the debate had ended, the government apparently decided that while they might lose two or three supporters from Ontario or Quebec it would be better to pay the price in order to secure the vote of the party to my left, and they acted accordingly. There is no record in the Canadian or any other parliament where such a deliberate purchase of an opposition party has occurred. As I have previously said, the motion of the leader of the Progressive party last year describes almost word for word the action of the government this year. I think it was the Prime Minister the other day who stated to the House that the Minister of Finance ,(Mr. Fielding) was in perfect accord with the (budget brought down by the Acting Minister of Finance.


John Warwick King: Yes, and I
would like to say that since I made that statement I have had a conversation with the Minister of Finance, who desired me to repeat it the next time the subject was mentioned in the House.


James Arthurs: There has been a rumour around the country that the mental condition of the right hon. gentleman is not of the best.
The Budget-Mr. Arthurs


John Warwick King: My hon.
friend is quite wrong. I hope he will have the courtesy to take back a statement of that kind.


James Arthurs: I had no intention of
saying it seriously.


John Warwick King: I would ask
him to take it back.


James Arthurs: I simply say there was
a rumour of the kind, which would be justified if the hon. gentleman-


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: [DOT] I rise to a point of order. I do not think the hon. gentleman has any right to make a statement of that kind, based upon what he says i3 a mere rumour. As a colleague of the Minister of Finance and a personal friend, I desire to say that that statement is absolutely untrue; there is not the slightest warrant in fact for it. Furthermore, he 'Mr. Fielding) intimated to me, as he did to the Prime Minister, that the budget brought down by the Acting Minister of Finance had his entire approval.


James Arthurs: I have no desire to cast
any reflection on the Minister of Finance.


Mr. MARTELL:: Make it on your own
responsibility.


James Arthurs: I am not making any
charge at all.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Then do not repeat
rumours.


James Arthurs: I do wish, however, to
place on Hansard the remarks of the Minister of Finance made last year when he was introducing the budget. I quote from pages 2648 and 2649 of Hansard, 1923:
Any minister, any government, any parliament must be free to deal with these cases as they arise. But the conditions to which I refer are exceptional. Speaking broadly, it is possible to give the country a reasonable assurance of stability of tariff. Such assurances are very desirable, for no business man would care to enter upon enterprises which may be brought into peril by frequent tariff changes.
Yet we find the Minister of Agriculture to-day openly stating that he is going to keep biting away until he gets the whole structure destroyed.
The tariff as it will be when the changes proposed to-day go into effect-
I am quoting now from the Minister of Finance.
-will be a moderate tariff and probably as low as any country can afford to have under the present conditions. It will not meet the desires of those who would rigidly apply the principles of free trade. It will not meet the wish of the advocates of high protection. After all life is largely made up of com-

promises. In the realm of political affairs orderly government can be possible only where a spirit of compromise exists. Subject to the' exceptional conditions such as I have mentioned, I think the country should be content to accept the tariff as it will now stand as one as fair and reasonable as can be prepared under all the circumstances, and business men should be able to carry on the various enterprises without the fear of being soon disturbed by further changes
"Without the fear of being soon disturbed by further changes."
Stability of tariff cannot be expected while tariff rates are high. But where the rates are, for the most part, as in our tariff moderate, a reasonable measure of tariff stability should be assured. "
Those are the remarks of the Minister of Finance made last year in the course of his budget speech.
The government are claiming great credit for having reduced the sales tax. We must all remember that they are the parties
5 p.m. who were responsible for the sales tax; it is only a few months since it went into force at the rate of 6 per cent as proposed by these hon. gentlemen themselves. They have increased the number of items which are not subject to the sales tax, but I notice that they have missed many very important items which should have just as much consideration as those which have been exempted. For instance, take the case of lumber. Every farmer, every householder, almost every man in Canada, uses lumber; it is an essential to the farmer and the householder, yet we find that the taxes upon it are retained. And to make matters worse, throughout Canada we have hundreds of small saw mills, little planing mills, little factories of one kind or another, the product of which until the present year had been exempt from taxation, and while the rate has been lowered from 6 to 5 per cent, the output of these small mills is now subject to taxation.
I have no desire, Mr. Speaker, to prolong this .debate, I am satisfied that the people are well acquainted with the lack of sincerity on the part of the government. The fact is that the government are prepared to sacrifice any one, any industry, any political tradition, for the purpose of retaining power.


Lewis Herbert Martell: May I ask my hon.
friend a question? Where does he get his evidence that the people are axvare of a lack of sincerity on the part of the government? Is it not only a statement made by my hon. friend himself to bolster up his case.


James Arthurs: My hon. friend will have a chance to talk.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I will talk at the right time.

The Budget-Mr. Arthurs


James Arthurs: The whole budget this
year has been prepared for the purpose of purchasing the support of our western friends, and has, I believe, succeeded in that object. But the rest of Canada, the vast majority, must know that they pay for all this. The friends of the present tariff proposals claim that the reductions will benefit the farmers of the West to the extent of $10 each per year. If that be true, it surely will not make them rich. Tariff reductions do not usually mean lower prices; in fact, if competition in business is lessened by the lowering of duties, prices go up, not down. If factories are closed for any reason the farmer loses a market accordingly and is forced to export to other countries, generally protected against him. The greatest need of the farmer to-day is a market near home where his profit will not be taken away by transportation charges. I have heard it stated by a man who has made a study of these matters that the difference between the freight rate in 1914 and that in 1924 from the middle West provinces to Liverpool on one carload of wheat would pay the duty upon all the agricultural implements used on a farm over a period of ten years.
It has been often said by hon. members to my left that the farmer pays it all, but has to compete without protection in the world's market. Both these statements are misleading and untrue. It is quite true that the farmer pays his share of the customs duties in proportion to the amount of goods used by him, but so does the mechanic and the labourer-in fact every citizen of Canada. In most cases the amount of duty paid is in proportion to the purchasing power of the buyer which is one of the good points of a customs tariff. The only exceptions to that rule are articles which are taxed for revenue purposes only. Hon. gentlemen to my left, and hon. gentlemen opposite, are fond of asserting that they believe in a tariff for revenue only, but the most oppressive tariff on the poor man and the settler is the tariff for revenue only. I notice that for many years there has been a tendency on'the part of various ministers of finance to commend a tariff for revenue on the ground that it is more quickly and readily computed and easier to collect. For instance it is only a few years since we first had a duty upon sugar. But since then we have had duties imposed upon tea, coffee, and other articles that constitute a direct tax upon the people.
I want to point out in answer to some remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture that the farmers of Canada at the present time are enjoying a very considerable mea-118
sure of protection. I have here some returns brought down by the government which show the amount of duty collected upon various articles imported. For instance there is a duty of approximately 19 or 20 per cent upon frozen mutton and lamb, and the importations for the year 1922, the latest period I have, amounted to $520,669, in value, whilst the amount of duty collected was $94,024.
I also have the imports of pork for the same year. The value amounted to $4,420,440 and the duty paid was $854,114, a rate of 20 per cent. On imports of barrelled and pickled pork the rate of duty was about 21 per cent, and the duty collected $162,901. Even on eggs we find there is a duty of approximately 10 per cent, and we imported last year from the United States upwards of 8,000,000 dozen. The average for many years past has been in that vicinity. So that if we take these articles-and I am only selecting those which come into open competition with our Canadian producers-we find that our farmers do enjoy a considerable amount of protection. But I do not believe they enjoy enough, and I am willing to support any man who will give our farmers the benefit of exactly the same tariff that another country enforces against them. If the United States imposes a duty of 8 cents a dozen on eggs entering that country I believe we should impose a corresponding duty on American eggs sent to Canada. The same with butter and other commodities. If we do that we have a chance to bargain with our competitors, we have a chance of making better terms with them. In the meantime, through the medium of these duties we have a chance of helping our farmers out of the existing situation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the House by speaking at much greater length. We have in this chamber substantially three parties at the present time. To my left we have the Progressive party whose principal object seems to be to get what they can for themselves regardless of anybody else. They say openly that they do not care what happens to any industry, that they do not believe in helping any industry which is not native to the country-that they do not want any exotics. May I point out to hon. gentlemen to my left that the largest silk producing country in the world is the United States of America, a country that does not grow any silk. The largest cotton producing country in the world, I believe, is Great Britain and yet no cotton is grown in the United Kingdom. The two countries named have built these industries up and they are just as valuable to them as any other form of industry could

The Budget-Mr. Arthurs

be-and they give employment to the people. Our Progressive friends apparently believe that all they are here for is to make certain demands for free agricultural implements, and a few other things and go home happy.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Would the hon. gentleman give authority for his statement?


James Arthurs: If you read Hansard you cannot get away from-that conclusion. Then there are hon. gentlemen opposite who are more or less of a mixture. They have one free trader among them, and they have several other hon. gentlemen who are absolutely in favour of free trade on everything except the article that is produced in their particular part of the country. I refer to the representatives from the coal mining districts. They comprise eight or ten men who are perfectly willing that every other industry should go to the wall provided they can only get an increased duty on coal.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Name them; do not confine yourself to making declarations.


James Arthurs: Then we have another class of men-


Lewis Herbert Martell: That is only an assertion on your part.


James Arthurs: -who are quite willing to sacrifice any industry except one. There are sixty-four gentlemen in that group.


Lewis Herbert Martell: That is only your assumption.


James Arthurs: They are all in the province of Quebec and they are quite willing that any industry should suffer except the boot and shoe industry. They do not want that industry to be touched at the present time.


Mr. GRAHAM:: What is the matter with the boot and shoe industry?


James Arthurs: It is all right. As a matter of fact hon. gentlemen opposite have almost as many policies in the House as they had in the country. They are quite willing to grasp at anything that will be of advantage to them politically. On the other hand everybody knows where the official opposition stand. We advocate the same policy that we did in 1879, and we intend to adhere to it. When the people have another opportunity to express their opinion they will declare that they are in favour of a policy which will protect our industries and our workmen, a policy which will protect Canadian workers, from competition with German labour at forty

cents a day, and will at the same time protect and build up the farming industry in this country.


Mr. W. J. HAMMELL (Muskoka):: The
Acting Minister of Finance is entitled to the thanks and appreciation of this House for his able budget. The annual financial statement was presented to us in a clear and concise manner, and reflected the undoubted business ability of the minister in charge of our financial affairs. The seat to the right of the Prime Minister, vacant as it is at present, inspires me with a feeling of sorrow for our Minister of Finance. I only hope that the Right Hon. Mr. Fielding will make a rapid and complete recovery from his present illness, and that very soon we may enjoy his presence in this chamber.
I find myself in complete accord with the tariff policy of the government, and I iam certain it is a step in the right direction. I hope that a thorough study of the tariff situation will continue, so that in another year we may have more numerous and more substantial reductions all along the line. I have sufficient faith in our Canadian manufacturers, and sufficient respect for their business abilities, to believe they are capable of competing with the producers of any nation, and that the great majority of them will receive with joy any efforts and policies directed toward alleviating the burdens of our people.
I do not intend to take up the time of the House with any dissertation on the merits of the respective measures proposed. I realize that both from this side of the House, and from members of the Progressive party, a very able and clear defence of this year's budget proposals has been made during the course of this debate and I feel sure further arguments are unnecessary. I regret, however, that there should be lack of complete accord in this regard. I would ask the hon. members who form the official opposition to consider that their policy of high tariff and complete protection from outside concurrence has been followed for more than half a century. During this long period our manufacturers do not seem to have progressed towards the goal of tariff independence which our past policy has attempted to find for them. Would it not be showing a truer spirit of Canadianism to unite in an effort to give a thorough test to this change of policy. Why can we not get together and endeavour to accomplish under this new policy the results which we have been endeavouring to bring about since the adoption of a tariff policy of protection and failed?
I would ask the attention of the House to the matter which I am about to discuss, and

The Budget-Mr. Hammett
in giving the House the assurance that I will not repeat what has already been said during this debate I add that I have reason to believe that I will find support for the policy I wish to advocate in every section of this chamber.
Mr. Speaker, great stress is continuously laid on the necessity of developing our natural resources and often we hear very able discussions on our agriculture, our mines, our forests and our fisheries. Has it ever occurred to you that one of our important natural resources, which is indeed a basic industry of this country, seldom receives attention? Yes, indeed, we too aften forget our tourist industry and the scenic beauties of our country which form that great national asset from which we draw our invisible exports and which is a source of great revenue under present conditions where it is the subject of nearly total neglect and which could produce many times the revenue now derived if only we would give that part of our foreign and internal trade some attention. In taking up the time of this House in an endeavour to portray the immense undeveloped wealth with the great possibilities of this field, I believe that I am pointing a certain way to provide more employment, a greater home market for the farmers and to increase our revenues without depleting our resources.
Twenty-five or thirty years ago anyone who possessed sufficient temerity to include the natural beauty of his country in a tabulation of the national wealth would have been regarded as a sentimentalist and likely a subject of derision.' It is true that John Ruskin, some fifty years ago, in his political economy had pointed out that exceptional beauty might be the highest value that land could possess. I doubt if hard-headed business men ever took this policy seriously until more recent years. It is true that political orators have long been accustomed to refer with a vague and impressive gesture to "our wealth of natural scenery." This was regarded as one of those high-sounding meaningless phrases which always express more or less than the truth. Yet to-day, Mr. Speaker, everywhere exceptional natural scenery is being recognized as one of the most valuable assets a nation can possess. Its conservation and delevopment is receiving ever-increasing attention in practically every civilized country in the world. The Great War forcibly brought to the fore this immense asset and even the unsightly devastation in the war zone has been and is still being exploited for its scenic value and in this case it would be difficult even to imagine that that deso-118i
lated area is possessed of beauty. On the other hand, it is only natural perhaps that it should have taken so much time for the value of natural scenic beauty to be realized. Beauty after all is a very intangible thing, as compared with those other products of nature. You cannot touch our scenic beauties. When we trade in them we deliver our merchandise through the eyes of the purchasers. Such, however, is not the case with our farm products, our timber, our mineral products and the products of our fisheries. In these cases we deliver something very tangible; articles of commerce that can be measured or weighed, and upon which supply and demand generally recognizes a price of sale. The requirements for these articles do not have to be created, they are part and parcel of our everyday existence. In the case of beauty we can only deal on the demands for pleasure and recreation, on the desire of humans to explore new fields and discover new playgrounds. This trade, though perhaps intangible as compared to our lumbering industry, has become very real and I hope .to convince lion, members that it is to our interest to hasten its development.
The importance of exceptional natural scenery from the economic point of view lies of course in the tourist traffic it is capable of attracting. The desire to travel, to see the beauties and wonders of other lands than our own is almost universal and with the improved methods of travel of the last half century, its gratification has been placed within the reach of people of even moderate means. Once a journey of some two hundred miles was a costly and tedious affair and it was even considered dangerous. Today conditions have entirely changed and we are apt to look at a journey of that length more as an outing than travel. This, of course is specially true since the advent of the motor car; travel can now be enjoyed by almost everyone, and upon this form of recreation and education increasing millions are being spent from year to year.
It is admitted generally everywhere that previous to the Great War foreign tourist travel in Europe was worth annually to the countries visited well over a billion of dollars. In France alone this revenue was placed by economists at something between $500,000,000 to $600,000,000. For Switzerland the sum of .$150,000,000 was claimed from this same source and in Italy $100,000,000. The Rhine, that great show river of Europe, was said to be worth about $100,000,000 annually to Germany as were also the numerous seaside resorts of

The Budget-Mr. Hammell
the Baltic and the North sea. It is claimed -and this is said to be a conservative estimate -that Americans alone spent in excess of $450,000,000 in one year in Europe and that their additional outlay on this continent amounted to another $300,000,000. Figures carefully compiled by hotel and transportation companies in the New England states show a revenue from tourist traffic of over $100,000,000 per year. No resources are destroyed by such a trade. The national wealth increases without depleting the national resources. Take the pine woods of Maine, for example, where revenues are estimated at over $40,000,000 per year, not a single stick of timber needs to be cut to produce this revenue. And, again, it has been proven, beyond doubt that such places as Bermuda, Florida and California are adding more to their wealth through the commerce in their climate and scenic beauties than through the products of the soil.
The war, probably was the greatest factor in making statesmen realize the immense economic value of the tourist traffic, tor the first time Europe realized the magnitude and very great importance of the revenue they lost by the cessation of this traffic. Travel is necessarily international and national in character; but, as is apparent, the greatest benefit is derived from outside travellers as they are bringing in outside wealth. In France, a full year before the end of the World War, it was publicly declared that the country must look to tourist travel as one of the easiest ways of replenishing her depleted treasury. They at once created a special department of the government known as the Tourist bureau for the purpose of developing the tourist business of France, and voted 30,-
000.000 francs for this purpose. Italy has taken official steps along the same lines as well as Switzerland, whilst in other countries official recognition has been given to the great importance of this basic industry. For such it is.
As regards our own Dominion, it is pleasing to note that probably the greatest step towards the conservation of natural scenery and beauty was taken by our federal government. I refer to the creation of national parks. Has it ever occurred to hon. members that though this was one of the last of our resources to be recognized economically, it was also the first in regard to which the great principle of public ownership was adopted.
The first serious step in this direction was in 1885 when the government set aside 10 square miles for public park purposes including Banff Hot Springs. This area was

increased to 260 square miles about two years later. During the discussion on this bill, I noted with special interest the words of Sir John A. Macdonald, speaking in this House on May 3, 1887. He foresaw with his usual shrewdness the economic value of such a park, and he stated that, in his opinion, not only would it recuperate the people, but it would recoup the treasury as well. I believe I am on safe ground when I say that this prophecy has proven true. To-day this area comprises 2.751 square miles and has the additional charge of protecting wild animal life. Gradually were added Jasper park, Kootenay national park, Waterton lakes national park and other smaller, but nevertheless beautiful and important sections, until we now have practically 10.000 square miles of National parks in Canada. And from information I have been able to gather, several areas are again being considered by the provincial governments for addition to this reserve of beauty.
Unhappily the original step of reservation was not followed by any intensive policy of development, and it was not until 1911, a few years only before the Great War, that the National Parks branch was created, as a special division of the Department of the Interior. That this step was amply justified is evidenced by the rapid development which has taken place since that date. It is a matter of common knowledge that the very active policy of this department, the development of good roads and other conveniences, the advertisement of our railways and steamship transportation companies and widespread publicity from other sources have resulted in a steady growth of travel from other countries to these parks which now bring in many millions of dollars a year. Now, Mr. Speaker, though the extent of our National parks may appear to be great, in reality they represent only less than one half of one per cent of the total area of this country, and they do not begin to represent the great areas eminently suitable for this purpose. We possess a great number of areas extremely suitable for the attraction of the tourists of other lands, and the sooner we realize the economic importance of such a trade, the sooner we shall actively develop this element of our foreign trade.
I might instance a few of the very outstanding territories, beginning in the extreme east. First, we have the well known Bras d'Or lakes of Cape Breton and the many beauty spots of the Land of Evangeline. We then have that wonderful Garden of the Gulf in Prince Edward Island. Travelling west up the St. Lawrence river, we have countless

The Budget-Mr. Hammett
quaint and historic points in the old province of Quebec, including the far famed Murray Bay, of which I hope we may hear more from the hon. member from that wonderful district. Who will deny the beauties of the Laurentides and of the Saguenay district? Coming to this city in which we legislate, we are at the entrance of that wonderful district of the Gatineau rapidly becoming known from end to end of this continent and beyond. Who will not admit the wonderful beauties of the Thousand Islands at the head of the St. Lawrence river and the attraction which they have for thousands of visitors annually. Still further west we have the Muskoka lakes district and the Georgian bay country, and the same condition is found through to our Pacific coast. There is not, in my opinion, a single province of this Dominion which does not possess some territory of outstanding beauty and interest capable of attracting tourist traffic and providing a real benefit to the entire country.
Because I am more familiar with my own district and believe it to be one of the very best from the tourist standpoint, I will devote particular attention to it and endeavour to make my point for the development of this part of our basic resources by showing what this district has already done and what it is capable of doing. The Muskoka lakes district and the Georgian bay country are really the " Playground of America" in the making.
I do not desire to tire hon. members with a mass ot statistics bearing on this important phase, but I would ask their indulgence for a few moments and that they allow me to quote a few of the most important. First it is necessary to realize the value of this industry, and I believe a fair conception of what it is now worth is possible by the following statistical comparison. Taking only those industries which are absolutely basic we get this amazing comparison. The figures are for the year 1923, and are as follows:
Agriculture and agricultural products.. .. $407,760,000
Wood and wood products	 228,756.205
Tourist travel, estimated	 136.000,000
Animals and animal products	 135,000.000
Minerals and mineral products	 123 142,653
Is it not amazing to find this item of production to which we have paid so little attention with a value higher than that of our animal and animal products or than the wealth (produced by our mines? What could we not expect from this important national resource if we were to give it the attention which it undoubtedly deserves?
In the Georgian bay we have, not a thousand islands but thirty thousand, and in
the Muskoka lakes district we have scores and scores of wonderful lakes of various sizes in that wonderful district of the Highlands of Ontario. At the present time some development has taken place and the country is fairly well supplied with navigation and railway transportation. There are also some good roads, but I say without hesitation that only a very small start has been made and the development is not at all commensurate with what is possible and with what should take place. A carefully planned development would make of this locality just what nature seems to have intended for it, the playground of America
Taking only the three districts of the Georgian bay, the Muskoka lakes and the Lake of Bays, all within the electoral district of Muskoka, we find that, taking only the principal hotels and resorts, there is already accommodation in 155 such public places for over 10,000 guests. Besides this there are a large number of cottages and many people spend their holidays under the protective shelter of tents. But this is not all; there are besides a large number of summer resorts and residences privately owned and privately occupied, and each year sees an increase in the number of these. Hundreds of these places are owned by our American friends and you may rest assured that they are our unpaid advertisers.
Let us for a few moments look at the visitors who came to these hotels. In the Royal Muskoka, alone, that wonderful summer resort, set like a sentinel in the midst of that myriad of sparkling lakes, brooks and rivers that are everywhere to be found, that district which is the holidayers' preferred haunt, the fishermen's paradise and the ideal place, if one there is. where the strength, waning from a season's labours can be recuperated with the unparalleled enjoyment of the beauties and tranquility of nature, 14,950 guests were registered, during 1923, of whom 45 per cent were from the United States. Supposing that each of these guests spent only $100 on their holiday we have for the visitors of this hotel alone a total of $1,495,000. At the Bigwin Inn, on Bigwin island in the Lake of Bays, another diamond set in a district so beautiful that it beggars description, the season of 1923 saw 1,720 guests of whom 42 per cent came from the country to the south. The total given is exclusive of 455 guests comprising four separate parties staying from two to four days.
At this point I would quote some figures taken from the register of Bigwin Inn showing the number of guests from the various prov-

The Budget-Mr. Hammell
inces of the Dominioa who stayed at the hotel in the year 1923. From Alberta there were 3, from Manitoba 1, from Ontario 923, from Nova Scotia 2, from Quebec 54 and from Saskatchewan 2. From the United States there were the following: California 3, Connecticut 4, Delaware 3, District of Columbia 5, Florida 3, Illinois 63, Indiana 15, Iowa 2, Kentucky 1, Maryland 14, Massachusetts 13, Michigan 76, Minnesota 2, Mississippi 2, Missouri 1, New Jersey 12, New York 227, North Carolina 1, Ohio 162, Oklahoma 4, Pennsylvania 99, Rhode Island 3, Virginia 2, West Virginia 2, Wisconsin 2. This makes a total of 721. Taking as a survey, that each of the 155 places referred to, with their accommodation for 10,000 guests only, filled their rooms five times each during the entire season, we have a total of 50,000 guests, which at an average expenditure of only $100 each would mean a total expenditure of $5,000,000. From a very conservative estimate of the value of the investment in that region we find that in cottages, resorts and launches the total investment in the three sections of Muskoka, Lake of Bays and Georgian bay, and Muskoka lakes, is well in excess of $20,000,000. And the investment is rapidly increasing from year to year.
On the Muskoka lakes alone we find this remarkable summary of investment, and my authority is no less a person than the manager of the Muskoka Lakes Navigation Company:
Summer cottages
Lake Joseph	  175
Lake Rosseau	 230
Lake Muskoka	 490
Total	 895
At an estimated average value of 15,000 this represents alone an investment of $4,500,000.
Resort houses
Lake	Joseph	
12Lake	Rosseau	
32Lake	Muskoka	
26Total	
70
The estimated total investment of these resorts is conservatively placed at $2,000,000.
There are besides a fleet of 22 steamers valued at $367,000 and 390 gasoline launches estimated to be worth $1,000,000. The total investment represented is $7,867,000. In this district alone the number of visitors during 1923 is placed at over 30,000, which at the average expenditure of only $100 each would mean a total of $3,000,000.
To handle this traffic, the help engaged on steamers, in the resort houses and in the cottages would represent 3,000 at an average of $7,500 per day for wages alone. The average daily population would be about
7,000	visitors and 3,000 employees, a continuous population of 10,000 per day during the summer months. So that, at an average of $1 per day per person, you would have a total of $10,000. per day for food alone. One could go on endlessly quoting statistics of the importance, from the tourist standpoint, of this locality; and what applies in one part of our country would be more or less general to all those wonderful sections that our country possesses.
I have here a mass of statistics from different parts of the country, but at this late hour I will not attempt to read them. They are along the same line and perhaps some other hon. gentleman at a more favourable opportunity may allude to them. Just recall to mind the number of already famous places from the Pacific to the Atlantic and it is easy to realize that this Dominion can be made the playground of America, the paradise of holiday seekers. Why, the possibilities of the Muskoka district alone are practically immeasurable A careful study of population and travel distances has shown that within one day's journey to this famous region there are in the United States 43,000,000 of people who own and operate 5,200,000 automobiles.
I want to put on Hansard at this point some statistics prepared for me and published in Automotive Industries of February 21 of this year. From these figures it will be seen that Ontario has a tourist field to draw from which has a population of nearly forty million people, operating over six million motor cars:
State	Total registra- tions	Passenger cars	Trucks	Ratio to population	Approxi- mate population
Illinois						
Indiana		5R3 349				
Michigan		730!658				
New jersey						
New York						
Ohio		1,068,700 1,064,624				
Pennsylvania						V) 11)0} Ot/u
					
	6,062,255	5,149,202	913,053		43,497,8f4

The Budget-Mr. Hammell
If only one in the hundred of the automobile owners could be enticed to spend a vacation in the Muskoka lake district and that each party consisted of three you would have a total of 156,000 people from that section of the United States alone spending at least 815,000,000. And this of course is a very conservative estimate.
Turning for a minute to the automobile traffic over our borders, we find still more amazing results. In the year 1923 the Customs department recorded entries of 1,936,598 cars. A large number of this total of cars stayed in Canada for a period of only 24 hours or less; on the other hand, more than 200,000 stayed for a period ranging from two days to one month, and some 3,000 cars stayed from one to six months. Even taking a most conservative estimate of three passengers per car, and an average expenditure- of only $20 per car, we obtain a total expenditure from this source alone of $40,000,000. And when we consider the cost of maintenance and upkeep, gasoline, oil, and so forth, for the car and the food and lodgings for the passengers, without even including the large sums spent for souvenirs, entertainments and so forth, we readily realize that -this is a most conservative total.
One need not however consider these figures large, as they are very much below the business which we have a right to expect. With our immense resources for pleasure making and the unsurpassable natural beauties which we possess, it is within our power to develop a tourist traffic which will be one of our largest assets of external trade and one which, whilst producing immense revenue, will take nothing of our wealth of natural resources. Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker, we could develop a tourist traffic which would go far towards replenishing our treasury and bringing to us a trade which would be the source of much employment and considerable revenues to our transportation companies.
At this point let me read a paragraph from a letter dated April 23, 1924, which I have received from the Canadian National Railways. The writer says:	.
During the months of June, July and August, 1923, which would be considered the tourist months, the lines of the Canadian National Railways in the United States sold approximately 250,000 tickets for Canadian points, representing a revenue to the Canadian National Railways of approximately $2,000,000.
It has been estimated that Canadians spend annually approximately $50,000,000 in seeking vacation, health and pleasure in the United States. Is it not right to believe that if our 9,000,000 of people furnish that revenue to our neighbours, we can reasonably expect
from their 110,000,000 of population at least ten times as much, or some $500,000,000?
In this connection I may quote no less an authority than Dr. P. E. Doolittle, President of the Canadian Automobile Association. In a letter addressed to me under date of April 14, 1924, he says:
I have several times made a statement on the public platform that our objective in cash value for tourist business should be $500,000,000 annually, or ten times the amount Canadians spend at winter resorts in the United States; the population being more than ten times ours would make it an even trade off for them to visit us in ten times the numbers that we visit them.
This should be our objective, and we should also endeavour to convince Canadians that there are within our borders natural beauties that are well worth a visit to see and to enjoy.
I am not asking that we should discourage visits to the United States. I realize that a great part of this traffic takes place during the winter months, when their latitude supplies such places as California and Florida with a climate which is naturally much sought for during our cold winter months. I would ask these people however, if they have not already done so, to visit our beauty spots during the summer season,-then when they again journey to the warmer climes they would be anxious indeed to become the advertisers of our wonderful playgrounds.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the most profitable source of revenue, in so far as export trade is concerned, is produced by our tourist traffic, and these invisible exports should furnish a very great source of revenue. I firmly believe that our government can no longer afford to neglect this basic industry, for such it undeniably is, and should at once give it the consideration which it truly deserves.
I would point out, especially to my friends the Progressives, that great benefits to the farming industry of this country would ensue from the development of our tourist traffic. It is conservatively estimated that oneJhalf the expenditure of tourists goes for food, and that one-third of every dollar finds its way into the rural sections. Such being the case -and from a wide study of the conditions I am convinced that this estimate is very near the mark-if we developed our tourist traffic to produce even $300,000,000 per year it would add a market of $100,000,000 for our farmers. Is there any one who would deny that this large sum would be of very considerable influence and benefit towards rectifying t'he conditions of which we are complaining to-day?
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, for the serious consideration of the government,

The Budget-Mr. Hammell
first, that a thorough study of the situation be made in order to establish a special government department, preferably in charge of a cabinet minister, for the purposes of developing our tourist trade.
There should be established active cooperation with the various provinces and with every interested organization. Advertisements should be carefully arranged so as to coincide with the advertisements carried on by transportation companies and others. Every effort should be made to see that tourists receive the best treatment possible and that they be warned against any-and there exists some, unfortunately-who charge exorbitant prices. Good roads should be developed with national aid, where they are built in those beautiful scenic places which we possess, such as for instance, the Gatineau valley in the province of Quebec, the Bras d'Or lakes in Cape Breton and the Highlands of Ontario in the region of the Georgian bay and the Muskoka lakes. Careful planning would be necessary, and I am sure that within a very short time the expenditure would be more than justified. And after all, I am convinced that one very good way of obtaining really desirable settlers in our country is to enable them to see how beautiful it is and how great are the advantages. It is also one of the very finest of methods to encourage the development of all our industries. When an investor realizes for himself the immense natural advantages which we possess it will not be long before he is looking for places where he can invest capital in the development of industries.
If I had the time, Mr. Speaker,-I wish to finish before six o'clock-I could instance some very outstanding cases in your own province where very great development has taken place, especially along power lines, simply due to the mere accident of some tourist happening t'o visit that country.
I do not wish to take up more of the time of the House with this subject, which is so important, but I truly am convinced, that the government should give this matter full and earnest consideration. I believe that approval will follow from every corner of this chamber and that it will be looked upon very favorably by all the diversified interests melted into our national life.
Suffice it to say in closing that there seems no better way to develop and settle our

country from every standpoint than to take advantage first of our natural scenic beauties and by their very attraction prove to one and all the wonderful possibilties of this great Dominion.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, May 8, 1924