1924-04-30

MARINE AND FISHERIES COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Lunenburg) presented the first report of the select standing committee on Marine and Fisheries.

Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):: I desire to present the following petitions: petition signed by Wm. J. Kerr, elder of the
1612	COMMONS
United Church of Canada-Petitions
North Georgetown Presbyterian church in the province of Quebec and 237 others, the petition of James Cullen, Mayor of Riverfield and Howick, in the province of Quebec, and 177 others, and the petition of the Presbyterian Church Association of Ottawa, representing 1,900 members and adherents, protesting against the passing of Bill No. 47, to incorporate the United Church of Canada.


Mr. W. G. MITCHELL (St. Antoine):: I desire to present the petition of members of Erskine Presbyterian church, Montreal, protesting against the Church Union bill; also the petition of members and adherents of St. Giles Presbyterian church, Outremont, Quebec, protesting against the Church Union bill.


Mr. W. F. KAY (Missisquoi):: I desire to present a petition signed by certain officials, members and adherents of the Methodist church at Farnham, praying for the incorporation of the United Church of Canada.


Mr. G. C. WILSON (Wentworth):: I desire to present a petition signed by Bessie M. Telfer and 556 others of the Presbyterian church at Paris, Ontario, protesting against the Church LTnion bill.


Mr. G. A. BRETHEN (East Peterborough):: I beg to present the following petitions: petition signed by James Dutton and others of St. Paul's Presbyterian church, Peterborough, Ont., protesting against the passing of the proposed Church Union legislation; also a petition signed by certain officials, members and adherents of the Methodist church at Havelock, also petition signed by certain members and adherents of the Presbyterian and Methodist churches of Peterborough praying for the incorporation of the United Church of Canada.


Mr. J. E. FONTAINE (Hull):: I beg to present resolution passed unanimously by the quarterly official board of the Chelsea circuit in favour of the Church Union bill.
Mr. HUGH C. McKILLOP (West Elgin) :
I beg to present petition signed by George Geddes and other members and adherents of Knox Presbyterian church, St. Thomas, Ontario, protesting against the passing of the proposed Church Union legislation.


Mr. PAUL MERCIER (Westmount-St. Henri):: I beg to present petition signed by certain members and adherents of the Kensington Presbyterian church, protesting against the Church Union bill.


Mr. CLEMENT ROBITAILLE (Maison-neuve):: I beg to present petition signed by certain members and adherents of the Pointe 
aux Trembles College of the Presbyterian Church in Canada protesting against the Church Union bill.


Mr. R. M. GENDRON (Wright):: I beg to present petition signed by certain officials of the Methodist churches in the townships of Wakefield, Masham and Hull in the county of Wright in favour of the Church Union legislation.


Mr. J. F. WHITE (London):: I beg to present petition signed by J. Kingsborough and 28 others of the session, managing board and members of St. George's Presbyterian church, London, protesting against the Church Union bill.


Mr. JAMES MALCOLM (North Bruce):: I beg to present the following petitions protesting against the Church Union bill:	Petition
signed by certain members and adherents of St. Paul's Presbyterian church, Wiarton; petition signed by certain members and adherents of St. Andrew's Presbyterian church, Southampton; petition signed by certain members and adherents of Ashfield Presbyterian church, Lucknow, and petition signed by certain members and adherents of Knox Presbyterian church, Kincardine.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: I beg to present a petition
from members of the united congregations at Vars, Navan and North Russell of the Presbyterian and Methodist churches praying for the incorporation of the United Church of Canada during the present session of parliament.


Mr. L. P. BANCROFT (Selkirk):: I beg to present a resolution from the congregation of Balmoral church praying for the incorporation of the United Church of Canada.


Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State):: I
beg to present a petition from members of the congregation of the Methodist church at Malden asking for the incorporation of the United Church of Canada.


Mr. J. J. THURSTON (Victoria):: I beg to present a petition signed by a number of members and adherents of the congregation of St. Andrews Presbyterian church, Eldon Station, Ontario, protesting against the Church Union bill.


Mr. WILLIAM ELLIOTT (Waterloo):: I
beg to submit a petition signed by Thomas Bal-lantine and others of the congregation of Knox Presbyterian church of Preston, Ontario, and a petition from J. K. Fraser and others of Knox Presbyterian church, Galt, Ontario, both protesting against the Church Union bill.

Budget Resolutions



HOME BANK

Mr. NEIL McTAGGART (Maple Creek):: I desire to present a petition signed by certain depositors in the Home Bank praying that they be indemnified.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: I beg leave to present a petition from 500 depositors of the Home Bank in St, James, Manitoba, asking for reimbursement.



BUDGET AMENDMENTS


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance):: I beg to submit, Mr. Speaker,
certain resolutions, affecting the customs duties and special war revenue.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Is that an amplification of the budget?
The resolutions presented by Mr. Robb are as follows:



CUSTOMS TARIFF

[Stage Direction]
1.	That Resolution No. 3 of April 10th, 1924, relating to amendments to schedule A to The Customs Tariff 1907, be amended by adding thereto the following provision :
That tariff item 456, the enumerations of goods and the several rates of duties of Customs set opposite said item be struck out of said schedule A and that the following items, enumerations and rates of duty be inserted in said Schedule A:
Tariff Item	-	British Preferential Tariff	Inter- mediate Tariff	General Tariff456	Ingot moulds, n.o.p.; glass moulds of metal	5 p.c.	7i p.c.	10 p.c.456a	Ingot moulds for use in the production of steel	Free.	5 p.c.	7J p.c.460c	Articles of metal when for use exclusively in smelting of iron ore or in metallurgical operations, that is to say:-machinery and apparatus for sintering or nodulizing iron ore or dust containing iron; machinery and apparatus for use exclusively in the construction, equipment or repairs of a blast furnace for smelting iron ore, such machinery or apparatus to be used exclusively between the blowing engines up to and including the hoisting apparatus at the skip hoist, and up to and including the point where the metal and slag are discharged from the furnace including foundations; and integral parts of all machinery and apparatus enumerated in this item, not to include valves, wrought iron pipe eight inches and under in diameter, nor structural iron work	Free.	5 p.c.	5 p.c.460d	Machinery and apparatus of a class or kind not made in Canada for use exclusively in handling iron ore and other materials to be charged into a blast furnace, from the dock, car or stock pile, at the iron or steel plant	Free.	Free.	Free.502c	Wood handles or stems for handles, not further finished than turned, when imported by manufacturers of shovels for use exclusively in the manufacture of shovels	Free.	Free.	Free.590b	Racing shells when imported by a bona fide Amateur Rowing Club in Canada for use exclusively by such Club	5 p.c.	25 p.c.	25 p.c.
Budget Resolutions
[Stage Direction]
2.	That said Resolution be amended by striking out	customs, set opposite	each of said items, if any, and bytariff items 445a. 445b, 533b, the several enumerations	substituting therefor	the following items, enumerationsof goods respectively and the several rates of duties of	and rates of duty:Tariff Item	-	British Preferential Tariff	Inter- mediate Tariff	General Tariff445a	Articles which enter into the cost of the manufacture of goods enumerated in tariff items 445, 446, 446b, 447b, 448 and 591, when imported by manufacturers of such goods for use only in the manufacture of goods enumerated in tariff items 445, 446, 446b, 447b, 448 and 591. Provided that goods which are entitled to free entry or a lower rate of duty than is mentioned in this item shall not be entered at the rate specified in this item	5 p.c.	6 p.c.	6 p.c.445b	Rolled iron, rolled steel and pig iron when imported for use exclusively by manufacturers in their own factories in the manufacture of goods enumerated in tariff items 445, 446, 446b, 447b, 448 and 591..	Free.	Free.	Free.533b	Linters of short fibres of cotton, bleached, when imported by manufacturers of paper to be used only in their own factories for the manufacture of blotting paper or other grades of paper	7$ p.c.	10 p.c.	12£ p.c.3.	That Resolution No. 4 of April 10th, 1924, relating enumerations and rate of drawback of customs duties to amendments to Schedule B to The Customs Tariff, be inserted in said Schedule B:
1907, be amended by providing that the following items,
Tariff Item	Goods	When Subject to Drawback	Portion of Duty (not including Special Duty or Dumping Duty) Payable as Drawback1042	Materials, including all parts	When entering into the cost of cyanide of potassium and cyanide of sodium	99 p.c.1043	Materials, including all parts	Which entered into the cost of goods enumerated in tariff items 445, 446, 446b, 447b, 448 and 591, on hand or in process of manufacture, in possession of the manufacturer and unsold, on the tenth day of April, 1924. Provided that drawback payable under this item is in lieu of drawback payable under any other tariff item.	99 p.c.

[Stage Direction]
1.	Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend subsection one of section nineteen BBB of The Special War Revenue Act, 1915, by providing that in computing the value of imported matches and of imported playing cards, the amount of the Excise Taxes imposed by Part three Section sixteen A of the said Act and Part four Section nineteen BB of the said Act shall be included in the value of such goods for purposes of this Act.
2.	Resolved, that the resolution of April 10th, 1924, relating to amendments to The Special War Revenue Act, 1915, be amended by striking out resolution number two and substituting therefor the following:
2.	Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend The Special War Revenue Act, 1915, and amending acts, by providing that the follow-
ing goods shall be exempt from the consumption or sales tax imposed by section nineteen BBB of the said act, that is to say:-books enumerated in Customs Tariff items 173 and 175; printed text-books authorized by the Department of Education of any province in Canada; goods enumerated in Customs Tariff items 45, 46, 64, 209b, 219a, dry preparations used for the same purpose as goods enumerated in item 219a, 281, 281a, 352a, 410, 410a, 445, 445a, 445b, 446, 446b, 447b, 448, 449, 450, 453b, 453c, 456a, 460, 460a, 460b, 460c, 460d, 461, 461a, 466, 466a, 469 including goods enumerated in this item of a class or kind made in Canada, 506a, 544,. 591, 591a, 663b, 666, 667, 696; tubing enumerated in Customs Tariff item 1017; insulin; extract of rennet; poultry feed; ice cream; rice, cleaned; Macaroni and vermicelli; meats, salted or smoked; carbolic or heavy oil, to be used only in creosoting logs and round unmanufactured timber; cream separators and parts thereof;

Questions
cars and other similar appliances for use exclusively at a mine or a quarry for mining or quarrying; articles and materials to be used exclusively in the manufacture of goods enumerated in Customs Tariff items 219a, dry preparations used for the same purpose as goods enumerated in item 219a, 281, 281a, 410, 410a, 445, 445a, 445b, 446, 446b, 447b, 448, 449, 450, 453b, 453c, 456a, 460, 460a, 460b, 460c, 460d, 461, 461a, 466, 466a, 469 including goods enumerated in this item of a class or kind made in Canada, 506a, 544, 591, 591a, 663, 663a, 663b, 666, 667, 696; tubing enumerated in Customs Tariff item 1017; articles and materials to be used exclusively in the manufacture of cars and other similar appliances for use exclusively at a mine or a quarry for mining or quarrying; articles and materials to be used exclusively in the manufacture of cream separators and parts thereof; materials, not to include plant equipment, consumed in process of manufacture or production, which enter directly into the cost of goods subject to the consumption or sales tax, manufactured or produced by a licensed manufacturer or producer; materials, not to include plant equipment, consumed in process of manufacture or production, which enter directly into the cost of goods enumerated in Customs Tariff items 281, 281a, 410, 410a, 445, 445a, 445b, 446, 446b, 447b, 448, 449, 450, 453b, 453c, 456a, 460, 460a, 460b, 460c, 460d, 461, 461a, 466, 466a, 469 including goods enumerated in this item of a class or kind made in Canada, 506a, 544, 591, 591a, 663, 663a, 663b, 666, 667, 696; tubing enumerated in Customs Tariff item 1017; and by providing that on the following goods there shall be imposed, levied and collected only fifty per cent of the said consumption or sales tax, that is to say:-boots and shoes, including rubber footwear; biscuits of all kinds; goods enumerated in Customs tariff items 86, 105 and 106; creosoted railroad ties.
3.	Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend subsection seven of section nineteen BBB of The Special War Revenue Act, 1915, by providing that any bona fide wholesaler or jobber may be granted an annual license for the purposes of the said section and that the license of any wholesaler or jobber who contravenes any requirements of the said section shall be cancelled forthwith and shall not be restored within a period of two years after the date of cancellation.
4.	Resolved, that any enactment founded on the foregoing resolution number two shall be deemed to have come into force on the eleventh day of April, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-four, and to have applied to all goods mentioned in the said resolution imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on and after that day, and to have applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that day.

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

Mr. IRVINE:: 1.	What is the name or names of person or persons, employed by the Canadian government who inspect (a) bank notes; (b) postage stamps; (c) tobacco, cigar and cigarette stamps; (d) inland revenue stamps; (e) wine and liquor stamps; (f) bonds?
2.	What are the qualifications for such a position or positions?
3.	What is the salary ?
4. Are the present occupant or occupants of the position qualified as plate printers or engravers?
103i
5.	Did the present occupant or occupants pass an examination prior to appointment ?.,
6.	Is Canadian paper used in the printing of Canadian currency, stamps, labels and bonds?
7.	What sums were paid the American Bank Note Company, Limited, during the year 1923?
8.	What sums were paid the Canadian Bank Note Company, Limited, during the year 1923?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Department of Customs and Excise-
1.	(c), (d), (e) P. L. Smyth.
2.	Thorough knowledge of the provisions of the Inland Revenue Act and Special War Revenue Act and regulations thereunder as affecting such matters. Experience, accuracy and integrity.
3.	$2,100.
4.	No.
5.	No.
6.	Yes.
1.	(a), (b), (f), 7 and 8. Do not refer to this department.
Department of Finance-
1.	(a) Bank notes are printed for and by order of various banks.
1.	(f), 2, 3, 4 and 5. Bonds are inspected by competent employees of the Department of Finance before issue.
6.	As to currency, no; as to bonds, in part.
7.	None.
8.	$649,152.51.	1
Post Office Department-
1,	2, 3, 4, 5, (b). Inspected by competent employees of Post Office Department before issue.
6.	(b) Yes.
7.	(b) $19,055.13.
8.	(b) $199,834.53.
Department of Trade and Commerce-
1,	2, 3, 4, 5, 6. No information.
7.	$185.
8.	No information.


TERMINAL ELEVATORS
Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	How many terminal elevators are owned by the Dominion government ?
2.	Are any of these terminals leased ?
3.	If so, to whom?
4.	On what terms?
5.	For what length of time?
' Hon. Mr. COPP:
1.	Eight.
2.	No.
3.	4 and 5. Answered by No. 2.


SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT .
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	What was the total number of employees and what was the total amount of wages paid in the Stores branch of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment in each year since the formation of that department?
Questions

2.	What was the cost of stores purchased each year?
3.	Were these stores purchased by tender? If not, in what manner were purchases made?


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: 1. The organization of the department does not contain a "Stores Branch." There is a subdivision of the Administration Branch known as the Purchasing and Stores Division which is responsible for all purchases, the receipt, distribution and custody of supplies and equipment, and for the disposal of surplus stores. It consists of the following:
As at March 31st.	Staff Salaries
(a) 1918..The Department was established 21st February, 1918, to take over the work of the Invalided Soldiers' Commission. Available statistics do not show the distribution of the staff by subdivisions as at 31st of March, 1918.
(b) 1919	
109	$113,435.00(c) 1920	
221	232,997.00(d) 1921	
259	321,708.00(e) 1922	
172	219,440.00(f) 1923	
110	139,464.00(g) 1924	
92	119,228.002. The volume	of stores handled during	each year was as	follows:	Value ofPurchase of	equipmentFiscal year	stores in-	and storesending	eluding sup-	disposed ofMarch 31st	plies and	as sur-equipment	plus(a) 1919	$1,807,461.24	(b) 1920	3,001,088.51	(c) 1921. ., ..	2,062,916.31	$438,159.22(d) 1922	1,229,796.29	1,288,635.24(e) 1923	1,117.135.20	276,189.23(f) 1924	836,368.50	205.246.363. Yes.	HUDSON BAY RAILWAY


Mr. TOBIN:: 1. What was the	total cost of the	Hudson Bay
railway on the 31st March, 1924?
2.	How much money did the government receive from the sale of lands, the proceeds of which were to apply to the construction of the said railway?
3.	What will be the probable cost to finish the said road?
4.	Are there any other available lands which could be? sold in the said territory, the proceeds of which could be applied to finish this road?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1. $14,459,941.26, capital expenditure to March 31, 1923. Expenditure to March 31, 1924, is not yet available.

2.	There was no specific authority under the Dominion Lands Act, 1908, for the sale of land for the purpose of Hudson Bay railway construction, but pre-emptions and purchased homesteads were sold under the provisions of the said Act. The net amount collected on account of pre-emption sales up to March 31, 1924, was 115,984,134.89, from purchased homesteads, $3,146,421.84, a total of $19,130,556.73.
3.	$6,250,000 (estimate) exclusive of terminals or harbour developments.
4.	By Order in Council of the 16th March, effective 20th March, 1918, PC. 651, preemption and purchased) homestead provisions of Dominion Lands Act were suspended and these provisions were subsequently deleted from the Act by the amendment of 1918, Chapter 19, Section 28.
No. 1. ELEVATOR-VANCOUVER


Mr. COOTE:: 1.	What was the cost of the addition to No. 1 elevator, which was built last year at Vancouver?
2.	What is the storage capacity of the said addition?
3.	Were tenders advertised for, if so in what papers and on what dates were advertisements published?
4.	What were the names of firms tendering for the contract and the amounts of said tenders, if any?
5.	If the contract was not let by tender in what manner was the contract given?
6.	To whom was the contract given and on what terms was the said contract given?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	For the concrete storage house, shipping house, and necessary machinery and equipment complete, including the connecting conveyor gallery to Elevator No. 1, to February 29, 1924, $749,875.54.
2.	850,000 bushels.
3.	Tenders for the foundation work were advertised for April 16 to 18, 1923, in the Vancouver Daily Sun, World and Province. By the time plans of details for the superstructure were completed, necessity for extreme expedition in order to make the facilities of the addition available at the earliest possible moment suggested the wisdom of arranging a contract by negotiation, and, after considering the proposition with different reliable firms, the contract was given to the Pacific Construction Company the lowest qualified bidder on the foundation work, on a cost plus 10 per cent basis;

the percentage to be paid, however, not to exceed $35,000.
4.	Messrs. Cotton & Co., $36,715; C. D. Col-lard, $41,750. (This man afterwards requested that his bid be withdrawn). Messrs. Paulsen & Co., $49,239; Nickson Const. Co., $72,440; McQueen Const. Co., $46,378; Pacific Const. Co., $42,807.

Questions
5.	Answered by No. 3.
6.	Answered by No. 3.	.


FEDERAL APPEAL BOARD
Mr. BOWEN:: -
1.	Since the Federal Appeal Board has been instituted how many decisions has it given against the Pension Board ?
2.	Have any of the Federal Appeal Board decisions against the findings of the Pension Board been translated into cash payments to successful appellants?


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: 1.	On first appeal, 56. On re-appeal by the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada,
7.
2.	Yes.


MR. J. R. H. BYRNE
Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: 1.	Has the Minister of Immigration and Colonization received a letter from the member for the county of Quebec, dated December 22, 1923, requesting and insisting upon an inquiry being made with regard to the charges against Mr. J. R. H. Byrne, in relation to the restaurant and canteen at the port of Quebec?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the minister to allow the inquiry as requested?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.


THE STAMP TAX
Henry Lumley Drayton: How much money was collected under the stamp tax on cheques (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. BUREAU:: I do not think we
can answer this question, which asks for the amount of money collected under the stamp tax on cheques. My hon. friend knows very well that we have no means of ascertaining how many stamps went out on cheques in the period specified, how many on notes, matches, and so forth. We distribute the stamps, and they are sold to the people.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
may be right in so far as matches are concerned, but I should not think so. Perhaps the question could be amended to apply to cheques, promissory notes or drafts, so as to meet my hon. friend's point.


Jacques Bureau: What about receipts?


Henry Lumley Drayton: And receipts too.
' I will amend the question accordingly.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Stand.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It is impossible to distinguish the amount of stamp tax collected on cheques as distinguished from amount collected on notes, drafts, bills of exchange, statements of overdrafts, money orders, receipts.


SEASONABLE HINTS
Mr. PRITCHARD:: 1.	At what intervals during the year 1923 did the Department of Agriculture issue the publication known as "Seasonable Hints"?
2.	What number of copies were printed at the different periods: (a) English; (b) French?
3.	What was the cost of the several editions; (a) English; (b) French?
4.	What was the total cost of this publication for the year?
5.	What system of distribution was followed?
6.	How many requests for this publication has the Department of Agriculture actually on file?
Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL;
1.	"Seasonable Hints" was issued three
times during 1923, viz:	March, July and
November.
2. Number of copies recommended for printing:	March, English, 304,000, French, 83,500; July, English, 312,000, French, 87,500; November, English, 322,000, French, 91,500.
3.	March editions, English, $2,688.65, French,
$765.46; July editions,	English, $2,454.90,
French, $753.40; November editions, English, $2,602.28, French, $830.40.
4.	$10,095.09.
5.	The Publications Branch of the Department of Agriculture sent "Seasonable Hints" to every address on its mailing list and furnished copies on special application. The Experimental Farms branch furnished copies on individual request, and, on request, also, to banks throughout Canada.
6.	375,007.
.	RAILWAY NEWS SERVICE


Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	" Is the News Service (Agent) Department on the Canadian National Railways run by that railway or is it let to a contractor?
2.	If the latter, who is the contractor and how much "is paid for this contract?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	To a contractor.
2.	Canada Railways News Company; on a percentage basis.


CANADA AND GULF TERMINAL RAILWAY COMPANY
Mr. GAUVREAU:: "'N
1.	What money subsidy has been paid to the Matane and Gaspe Railway, now known as The Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway Company?
2.	On what grounds were the double subsidy payments based?
3.	Were exaggerated reports sent to the Department of Railways to obtain the double subsidy?
4.	If so, is it the intention of the government to institute an inquiry on the subject . so as to have anv money so obtained returned to the department?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	$210,053.59.
2.	Because actual, proper and reasonable cost justified payjnent of more than ordinary subsidy.
Questions

3.	Subsidy was paid on report of the Chief Engineer of the department after inspection of work by inspecting engineer and of books and vouchers by the departmental auditor.
4.	See reply to previous questions.


C.N.R.-OFFICIALS' SALARIES
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	How many officials and employees of the Canadian National Railways, Atlantic Division, are in receipt of a salary of $2,400 and over?
2.	Of these, how many are French Acadians or Canadians?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	The management takes the ground that it is not in the public interest to furnish this information.
2.	All Canadians. Proportion, of French Acadians not known.


CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT, MONTREAL- DISMISSALS
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	How many employees of the Department of Customs, at Montreal, were dismissed from the ser-
.vice since January 1, 1924?
2.	How many were dismissed for personal reasons?
3.	How many were dismissed to conform with the government's economy programme?


Jacques Bureau: I can answer this
question orally. Since January 1, 1924, there were none. Questions 2 and 3 answered by No. 1.


IMPORTATIONS OF CHINESE EGGS
Mr. DICKIE:: 1.	How many dozen of Chinese eggs were imported, into Canada during the year 1923?
2.	To what points in Canada were such eggs shipped ?


Jacques Bureau: Imports of eggs from Hong Kong and China entered for consumption by ports: during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1923.
Port	Hong Kong. China.
Doz. Doz.
Halifax, N.S		.. .. 300	
St. John, N.B		.... 25	
Montreal, P.Q		.. .. 4,379	
London, Ont	.. .. 50	17Port Arthur	.. .. 33	50Sudbury	.. .. 17	Toronto	.. .. 2,769	Winnipeg, Man	50Calgary, Alta	.. .. 55	Cranbrook, B.C	.... 75	Nanaimo	.. .. 909	New Westminster.. ..	.. .. 192	Revelstoke	.. .. 350	Vancouver	.... 34,423	75Victoria	.. .. 19,472	Total	
.	.. .. * 63,182	192
fMr. Graham.]



WAR REVENUE ACT

Sit HENRY DRAYTON:: What was the total amount collected under the provisions of the Customs Tariff War Revenue Act, 1915, and other acts providing for new or increased duties both of customs or excise during the years 1915 to 1921, inclusive?


Jacques Bureau: War tax and excise taxes collected under provisions of the War Revenue Act during the fiscal years ended March 31, 1915 to 1921.
Fiscal	War Tax on	Excise Taxes
Year	Imports	
1915..	.. $ 2,638,473 03	$ 98,056 951916..	.. 25,256,787 89	1,550,488 351917..	.. 37,830,427 39	2,072,441 421918..	.. 45,018,562 27	2,253,421 S71919..	.. 44,728,091 67	11,964,740 031920..	.. 31,369,296 91	15,744,039 891921..	.. 4,891,895 55	79,346,814 98



AEROPLANE STATION-NORTH SYDNEY

Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Were repairs made to airplane station at North Sydney during the fiscal year of 1923?
2.	Were tenders called for these repairs and if so, what tenders were received?
3.	Who received the contract and at what price?
4.	What was the extent of the work?
5.	Who were the cheques made payable to for the work done on the job?
6.	What is the intention of the government regarding the future use of these buildings and what did they cost the government for maintenance and repairs each year for the past five years?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 

IRON ORE BOUNTY

Hon. Mr. MANION:: With reference to the offer of the Ontario government to give a bounty on iron ore, provided the Dominion government gives an equal bounty, has the government reached any conclusion in this regard?
2. If 60, what is that conclusion?


Charles A. Stewart: The
matter is still under consideration.



MANITOBA FISHERIES

Mr. BANCROFT:: 1. What was the value of the products of the fisheries of Manitoba for the year ended March 31, 1924?
2. What was the total cost of administering the fisheries of Manitoba during the same period?
3.	What was the total revenue of the Department of Fisheries from the fisheries of Manitoba for the year ended March 31, 1924?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	SI,020,595 for the calendar year 1923.
2.	Salaries and disbursements of:
Fishery Officers	$13,041.96
C. G. S. Bradbury .. .. 20,051.25
Total $33,093.21
3.	$15,345.88.



C.G.S. BRADBURY

Mr. BANCROFT:: 1.	What was the total cost, including furnishings, of the Canadian government steamer Bradbury?
2.	What has been the cost of maintaining and operating this vessel each year up to the end of the last fiscal year?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1. $203,329.54.
2. 1915-16 			$ 7,182.85
1916-17 			 19,122.24
1917-18 		.. 18,943.45
1918-19 			 22,05823
1919-20 			 21.176.75
1920-21 			 16.787.94
1921-22 			 23,624.52
1922-23 			 21,852.05
1923-24 			 20,051.25
to March 31, 1924.



TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF MINISTER OF LABOUR

Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):: Mr. Speaker, on the 14th April I had a question on the order paper, and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) in my absence answered it in the following words:
This -question will be handled as a part of and answered by the answer to question No. 50.
As you know, Sir, the numbers of questions are changed from day to day, and consequently it is difficult to trace a question by number. After a good deal of trouble 1
succeeded in finding out that question No. 50 stood in the name of the member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride). He knew nothing about the answer. Finally I dug up the fact that this question, which is very simple in itself, and which the minister apparently did not want to ask directly to be passed as an order for return, was so treated. I do not think it was necessary to adopt this course, as it seems to me the question was of such a simple nature that it might very easily have been answered by the minister.
PULPWOOD COMMISSION On the motion of Hon. Mr. Stevens:
For a copy of all evidence or statements made before the Royal Pulpwood Commission by Mr. Piche and other witnesses, members or officers of the government of Quebec.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, when this motion was moved at a previous sitting I directed the attention of my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) to the fact that the evidence which he is asking for had been given under an arrangement with the Forestry department of the government of Quebec that it would be considered confidential, and that therefore the Pulpwood Commission do not care to furnish a copy without the consent of the provincial government. Under the circumstances, might I ask my hon. friend to drop the motion? Or I can write the Forestry department of Quebec for permission to furnish the evidence, if he so desires.


Mr. STEVENS:: Mr. Speaker, might I ask
the indulgence of the House for a moment? I would suggest to the minister that he request the consent of the government of Quebec to make public this evidence. The reason for my suggestion is that the Pulpwood Commission was appointed under the authority of this government, and therefore we are entitled to any information called for by parliament in connection with it.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, the proposition
of my hon. friend sounds reasonable, and I offer no opposition to the resolution, with this understanding, that if the government of Quebec decline to give their consent, we are not to be held responsible if the evidence is not brought down.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Of course, we expect that out of deference to an order of this House a rather strong request will be made by the government that the evidence should be brought down. I think the House is entitled to see the evidence, and that is the reason I ask for it.
Inquiries for Returns


Jacques Bureau: The evidence was given on condition that it should be kept secret.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau) to an order which was passed on March 24th for papers regarding the appointment of Richard Fordham. So far as I can find out the papers have not yet been brought down.


Jacques Bureau: I will call the attention of the
officers of the department to the matter.



CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, on March 19, the House passed an order for the production of all papers (a) re diversion of water by the Chicago Drainage Commission; Ob) re an application for the construction of a power dam on the St. Lawrence river near the town of Morrisburg. When will all the papers be brought down on these two important matters? The House and the country are entitled to know. A deputation is now at Washington in reference to the Chicago diversion, claiming to represent Canada. Is the Dominion government represented there or not? What is being done about these two important matters?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The papers were brought down two or three days ago, and are on the Table.



RIFLE SIGHTS

James Arthurs: Mr. Speaker, on the 9th April a question standing in my name regarding a contract given for the supply of rifle sights was passed as an order for return. As a matter of fact, I do not think it was necessary to so treat the question, the answer to which should be very simple. At any rate the information has not yet reached me.


Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the return is being prepared, and I think is almost ready to be brought down. I will see that it is brought down.



MR. J. B. LEVESQUE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ALEXANDRE J. DOUCET (Kent, N.B.):	Mr. Speaker, on the 19th March a
[Mr. Stevens.)
question standing in my name for a copy of all correspondence with respect to J. B. Levesque was passed as an order for return. So far the return has not been brought down.
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN:: (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):	I will draw the attention of the officers of the department to [DOT] the matter.



ALBERTA MINERAL TAX ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Justice tell the House whether the government has come to any decision in regard to the application for the disallowance of the Mineral Tax Act passed by the Alberta legislature?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Yes, the government has recommended the disallowance of the Mineral Tax Act, and His Excellency the Governor General has disallowed it. But not for the reasons Which have been mentioned in the press. The disallowance has been recommended because the act was interfering with Dominion rights and was in conflict with Dominion policy and Dominion interests. I shall be pleased to lay on the table of the House the order in council as well as the report of the Minister of Justice, t'he petitions that have been received with regard to this act, and the representations made by the Attorney General of Alberta.
Mr. RYCKMAN'S STATEMENT
On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. R. A. HOEY (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister that the right hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) had fully endorsed this year's budget, and in view of the statement recently made by the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Ryck-man), I would ask if the government have received any information which would enlighten us as to whether the hon. member has yet submitted his resignation to His Honour the Speaker.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Acting Prime Minister):	Mr. Speaker, so far as
the government is aware, the member for East Toronto has remained silent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I
think my hon. friend might also add that so

The Budget-Mr. Clark
far 'as the government is aware the conditions mentioned in the statement of the hon. member for East Toronto have not yet been met.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Oh.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 29, 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.
Mr. J. A. CLARK (Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) announced to the country that his government had reduced the national debt for the year ending March 31, 1924, by the sum of $30,400,000 odd. The member for St. Law-renee-St. George (Mr. Marler), speaking yesterday, estimated that the Acting Minister of Finance should have shown a deficit of about $2,000,000, and the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), who followed him, stated that he agreed with the member for St. Lawrence-St. George and that he also believed that the minister should have shown a deficit.
By a simple mathematical calculation based on the principle enunciated by the member for St. Lawrence-St. George and by the member for Brome-principles which, I may say, I personally believe in, and principles upon which all past ministers of finance have acted-I estimate that the Minister of Finance this year should have shown a deficit of $26,906,850.43 instead of a surplus of $30,400,000 odd.	'
I would like to examine for a few minutes the statement furnished to the House by the Acting Minister of Finance. He stated that last year the national debt had increased by $31,641,067.01. If this be true, there must have been an improvement this year over last year of $62,000,000. Now, what are the facts? The returns of the Finance department show that this year's total revenues were larger than last year's by $2,383,000 odd. In addition to that, there was some found money, admitted by the minister to be such, of $9,622,000 odd. Similarly last year they had found money amounting to nearly $8,-
200,000.	They were therefore more fortunate this year than last by nearly a million and
a half dollars, showing a total improvement of about $3,800,000.
There are four classes of expenditure, ordinary, capital, special, and National Railways. Our capital expenditure increased last year by roughly, $3,500,000. Our ordinary expenditure diminished by $1,000,000 and our special expenditure diminished by $107,000, leaving a net increase in these three classes of expenditure of nearly $2,500,000. If we deduct the total increase of expenditure outside of National Railways from the total increase of revenue, we see that the showing for the year 1923-24 is better than the showing for 1922-23 by $1,385,000. If bur ordinary expenditure has only improved by the small amount that I have indicated, how does the minister find his betterment of $62,000,000? Obviously he has issued bonds, one issue for $50,000,000 on the railways, another issue for $22,500,000 on railway equipment, making $72,500,000 in all, but he has not charged that, as has always been done in the past, to the national debt. So that if you deduct the minister's supposed surplus of $30,500,000 ,t shows an actual deficit of $42,090,000.


Mr. EULER:: Would the hon member
permit a question? This is merely to clear up what I think is a misconception. In figuring the surplus or deficit, does the hon. member take into account any moneys expended by way of betterment to the railways, what yon might call capital expenditure?


John Arthur Clark: I will come to that. What
I was going to say was this. The minister has announced that of the $50,000,000 bond issue, he has cash in hand of $15,184,000, so that you may in all fairness, though the minister did not say anything about it in his budget speech, deduct that from what would appear to be the total deficit of $42,090,000, whereupon you arrive at the figure I gave of $26,906,850.43 as the actual deficit.
The hon. member for Brome stated, and I entirely agree with him, that the obligations of the National Railways are direct obligations in the same way that the Intercolonial railway obligations were direct, and that they should therefore be added to our national debt. With regard to betterments referred to by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Euler), the hon. member for Brome suggested that the national debt should be decreased by an amount equivalent to the extent to which the position of the National Railways had been improved by the value of the betterment. With that I do not agree; that would be an entirely wrong principle to adopt. If you value the betterments on the National Rail-
The Budget-Mr. Clark

ways and deduct the amount of that value from the total amount paid to the railways, you will have to do the same thing on all public works, on all canals and every other capital expenditure undertaken by the government.


Mr. McMASTER:: May I interject something there? Is there not a difference to be drawn between an ordinary public work such as a wharf or a canal which is not productive of any revenue, and a railway, which, properly managed should carry itself?


John Arthur Clark: I do not admit that our
canals do not produce a revenue, nor do I admit that we have not other public works that produce a revenue. But in any case the fact is that up until the end of 1923 this country had paid over $580,000,000 more on National Railways than the country considered National Railways were worth to us. Now let us go back to the year 1920, when a new system was adopted by the then Minister of Finance of writing off and adding to the national debt every non-active security. He states in his budget address of May 18, 1920:
It is obvious that the advances to the Canadian Northern, Grand Trunk Pacific and Grand Trunk Railway Companies cannot be treated as active assets. They are not at the moment realizable;' further, no interest is being paid, and in some cases the principal as well as interest is overdue. As is well known, Canada is now the owner of the Canadian Northern, receiver for the Grand Trunk Pacific, and steps have been taken for the acquisition of the Grand Trunk. While the railways have potential value, at the present time the fact is that the country itself owns the Canadian Northern and is responsible for the operation of the Grand Trunk Pacific, with resultant heavy cost to the taxpayer.
Assets which are not readily convertible, as the specie reserve is, or are not interest producing, are not such assets as ought to be deducted from the gross debt. They are inactive, they are items of such a character as might well be placed in a suspense account. At any rate, whatever may be their future value, however great it may be, they are not assets of such a character as to directly reduce the gross debt any more than the other capital accounts of the country ought to be deducted from it.
In that year, 1920, the Minister of Finance wrote off securities and advances to the value of $272,000,000 odd, and added that amount to the national debt. In 1921 he added another $100,000,000 approximately, and in 1922 the Minister of Finance in the present government (Mr. Fielding) added approximately another $100,000,000, and last year another $70,000,000, making a total of $558,000,000 odd of non-active securities that were written off, indicating that the railways had cost us that much more than they were worth to the country. This year we have it suggested that similar securities that have been considered of no value in the past should now be considered

as specie securities readily realizable. I submit that that has been done for the purpose of showing a balanced budget and a surplus, with the result that the country has been deceived, and the comparison between this year and last that has been given to this House and to the country is on a basis which is entirely unfair. The result of that system is going to mean that in the future the national debt cannot be ascertained with any degree of certainty, and Canada's credit will suffer accordingly, because investors will never be able to ascertain what the margin of security on this country's assets may be.
To show further how absolutely inaccurate the minister's figures are, he states in his budget speech that the railways have cost us $23,781,664, whereas the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) in a return stated that the total deficit for the calendar year of 1923 was $44,-
962,000.	What I would like to know is how this enormous deficit was reduced to $23,000,000 between January 1, 1924, and March 31, 1924, or was it reduced at all, and where did the minister get the money, unless as I stated he got it from the bond issues, and he has used that money for the purpose of paying ordinary deficits on the National railways?
Now I come to a different branch of this budget debate, and it is necessary before going into the general conditions of this country first of all to consider briefly agricultural conditions in Canada. At the outset I am prepared to admit that farming conditions are not satisfactory, and that we must find remedies for the existing conditions. At the same time I want to ask, are farming conditions in any country in a satisfactory condition? Are they in a satisfactory condition in the United States? Are they in a satisfactory condition in free trade England? Undoubtedly farming in free trade England is dead'. In the United States farming conditions resemble ours, but our conditions are better because we have cheaper land and because our prairie lands will still grow wheat, whereas in the competing sections of the United States immediately to the south, in the Dakotas, the land will no longer raise good crops. To use an expression which some of my Progressive friends have used, the land in the Dakotas is mined out.
I would like to refer to the presidential address of Mr. Coolidge before congress this year. He stated:
The distress is most acute among those wholly dependent on one crop. The wheat crop was greatly expanded and has not yet been sufficiently reduced.
A large amount is raised for export which has to meet competition in the world's market of large

The Budget-Mr. Clark
amounts raised on lands much cheaper and much more productive. He (the farmer) must be assisted by reorganization of the freight rate structure, which will reduce charges on his production. The acreage of wheat is too large. Unless we can meet the world market at a profit we must stop raising for export.
Now that is quite a different policy from that advocated by the wheat growers of this country. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) advocates that the way to cure the position of the wheat grower in Canada is to abolish protection; sound the death knell of protection, and that will cure all ills. I might refer for just a moment to his argument. He says, "I trust that it will be the death knell of protection." He refers to the depressed conditions that existed at the time the Laurier government came into power in 1896, and he attributes those conditions practically, exclusively to the high tariff. And then he boasts that the best condition Canada ever had existed between 1896 and 1911. But he admits that the tariff structure was not much changed. This is what he said:
In 1896 we had a change of government: Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into office. Now no one is going to suggest that over night Sir Wilfrid Laurier changed the whole fiscal policy of this country. He did not. But he did one thing-he succeeded in removing the quarantine regulations against cattle.
A great argument for free trade! Now, what I say is this, that at no time since the National Policy came into effect has any government of Canada pronounced a policy of free trade until that policy was announced by the Minister of the Interior in his recent speech. And I say that such a policy will act as a boomerang on those reponsible for it. Furthermore-and to my mind this is the most serious feature of the matter-it will not tend to promote a better feeling between the West and the East. In the past there has unfortunately existed a feeling in the West against the East. That will now be changed I fear to a bitter feeling on the part of the industrial interests of this country towards the section of Canada that is insisting now upon a policy of free trade. You cannot promote the interests of any one great industry by killing another great industry. In addition to that, such a policy will destroy what is more vital to the wheat grower-more particularly to the farmers of Ontario, Quebec, and the provinces other than the prairie provinces-namely, their home market. And even to the prairie farmer, despite the statement of the Minister of the Interior, the home market is absolutely vital. The home market is vital to every interest in this country-whether it be mixed farming, or fruit growing, or manufacturing, or any other walk of life. .
I should like now to give a few figures showing what this home market meant to the agriculturists in the year ending August 31, 1923. We will take grains first. The proportion of barley exported was 19.4 per cent. The proportion of beans exported was 7.1 per cent. The proportion of buckwheat exported was 6.3 per cent. The proportion of corn exported was 2 per cent. The proportion of oats was 4.7 per cent. I may point out that the value of the oat crop was over 50 per cent that of the wheat crop of the same year, which means that over 95 per cent of the oat crop of this country was consumed in the home market.


Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry):: Who provided that 95 per cent of the home market for oats and other coarse grains?


John Arthur Clark: I have not the figures. However, I have no doubt at all that the market was provided by all interests; by the wholesalers in the city who use horses; by the lumber men who use horses in the woods, and by the farmers themselves. I am not detracting from the fact that you sell some oats to farmers or that you use some oats yourselves: That is quite true. But how many bushels of oats do you suppose were eaten by the good Scotch Presbyterians in the form of oatmeal? I imagine it would amount to a good quantity. To continue with my figures. The proportion of peas exported was 7.8 per cent and the proportion of rye exported 31.4 per cent. Of wheat the proportion exported was 57.4 per cent.
I think it was the hon. member for Battle-ford (Mr. McConica) who some time ago asked the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) what difference there w,as between selling our produce to ten millions of foreigners and to ten million residents of Canada. With respect to that I ask: Is it of no value to increase the population of Canada? Do we want to increase the population of this Dominion, or do we want Canadians to continue their present exodus to the United States-a course that the present government is permitting? I question very much if there is a dairy farmer, or a producer of eggs, or a producer of beef or mutton in Canada who would suggest for one moment that the home market is not more vital to him than any other market that could be provided.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: When we
have an exportable surplus of eggs, and of d,airy and meat products, would not my hon. friend say that the price received for those products determines the price in the home market?
The Budget-Mr. Clark


John Arthur Clark: That does not for one moment detract from the value of the home market. My hon. friend must remember I am talking of the value of the home market.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The price received in the home market is determined absolutely by the price received for the exportable surplus.


John Arthur Clark: In principle that may be true as to wheat. But I think that the wheat growers of Canada to-day are receiving about the same price for their wheat that they received in 1913. Now I suggest that that price would be larger if we in-
4 p.m. creased the home market by an infinitely greater degree. This year we have 180,000 less consumers of wheat in Canada than we had last year; that number of our best Canadians has been driven across the borders of the United States. Is that market of any value to the wheat growers of this country?


Mr. FORKE:: Might I suggest to the hon. member that the 180,000 Canadians who are over in the United States are still eating wheat and eating up the surplus wheat.
M r. CLARK:	Grown by United States
farmers.


Robert Forke: No. That detracts from
the surplus.


John Arthur Clark: Of the United States, yes.
I have already quoted the president of the United States on that point, and he says that their exportable surplus is too large and that they must decrease the acreage. He will welcome, I am sure, these 180,000 wheat-eating Canadians to eat up that surplus. It has been disputed in this House; it was disputed by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George that Canada is losing its citizens at the rate that has been suggested. I have taken the trouble of obtaining from the United States Department of Labour the figures on the subject. I have a statement from the United States Commissioner of Immigration, and this is what he says:
Please also be advised that the enclosed table has reference only to bona fide Canadian citizens migrating from your country to the United States for permanent settlement purposes within the fiscal years referred to. The figures of non-citizens of Canada residing in that country who entered the United States for permanent residence purposes during the fiscal years referred to are not given in the figures given in the table herewith sent you.
The figures are as follows:
For the six months ended December, 1923.. 104,414
January, 1924	 15498
February, 1924	 14,092

Just to show how these citizens are leaving from the industrial centres where the home market exists for the wheat grower and the mixed farmer of this country, I should like to quote some of the departures from the principal centres in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime provinces. It must be remembered that the rate at which the people are leaving has increased almost 100 per cent since the end of the American fiscal year of 1923. For that year the departures are as follows:
Through ports-
Buffalo, N.Y	 4,020
Detroit, Mich	 16,621
Halifax, N.S	 2,533
Montreal, Que	 11,478
Niagara Falls, N.Y	 4,501
Port Huron, Mich	 3,528
St. John, N.B	 4.394
Vanceboro, Me	 4,708
Winnipeg, Man	 6,988
And so on, showing that it is the industrial centres that are being depleted, and that the home market for the farmers is thereby being needlessly lost.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Has the
hon. member those figures on an occupational basis to show what proportion of farmers and what proportion of industrial workers have left this country for the United States?


John Arthur Clark: I have not those figures,
but hon. members might note this, that the tremendous percentage of people who have left have come from that portion of Canada Which 'lies east of Fort William.
I should like to deal for a few minutes with the effect which the present policy of the government has upon the industries of this country. I have made a computation, and I find that ten tariff items of the present tariff amendments vitally affect 917 industries in Canada. There are only 37 tariff changes out of a thousand or more items. Let me refer to some specific industries and the effect upon them.
For the purpose of illustrating the effect of the reductions on logging machinery I will take some industry in my province, British Columbia. For the purpose of illustrating the effect on the mining industry, I will take an industry in Quebec. I find that in my city numerous manufacturers of logging machinery are vitally affected by this tariff. Until the war was nearly over, those manufacturers had made very little equipment for the logging industry; but they built up their plants during the war for

The Budget-Mr. Clark
munitions and other purposes, and as soon as the war closed, they adapted those plants for the purpose of making logging machinery. Under the protective system, in the particular lines of industry which they manufacture, we find that last year they controlled approximately 80 per cent of the market for logging machinery in British Columbia. By the way, I do not think this government or anybody else can for one moment accuse British Columbia of having old established manufacturing industries, industries which should have established themselves, got on their feet and be past the stage when protection should be required. I think it will be admitted quite freely by everybody that these are still infant industries. I might also mention this fact, that the logging industry in British Columbia is competing with the logging industry in the states of Oregon and Washington. We find that the logging industry in those two states is making a bitter complaint to the federal government at Washington, asking that something be done to stop our British Columbia logs from flowing in and competing with their logs on the Pacific coast. As a matter of fact,
I would rather welcome action on the part of the United States government to that effect, because if our government will not deal with the situation and will not put an export duty upon our raw materials, such as our logs, that we should manufacture into lumber here, I rather hope the American government will impose a duty and thus force our Canadians to manufacture their logs into lumber at home. Let me read what a few of these manufacturers think of [DOT]the policy of the government as indicated in this budget. It is incidentally significant to me to find that practically the only people who argue against any sort of protection are wheat growers and those who are not engaged in industry in any sense of the word and who therefore know nothing about industrial problems. They advance what I submit are the views of economists, which, elaborated nearly a hundred years ago, are no longer applicable to business conditions in this country, or any other country for that matter. This is what one of these ih-fant industries says:
The cost to the British Columbia logger is considerably less than to the United States logger and it would appear at first glance that we have no need to worry about American competition, but that is very far from being the case. The logging industry is to a very large extent controlled by American capital and the most of the logging superintendents and foremen are American citizens who have obtained their training in the United States. These men are all partial to American made goods and it is only because of the
large difference in the price that we can induce them to try the Canadian product. It is the American influence we have to fight, and reduction of the duty takes away the only weapon we have to fight with.
The hon. member for Brome, last night made the statement that bur people would buy Canadian goods in preference to American goods if we could sell them as cheaply.
I should like, to take the hon. member to British Columbia and let him go through the logging camps and ascertain for himself just what conditions these people have to contend with. I do not know to what extent, but I can say that to a tremendous extent, this industry in British Columbia is controlled by American capital, and many logging superintendents are American men trained in American ways and therefore prefer American machinery. Yet the hon. member for Brome has the hardihood to say that these men would buy Canadian machinery in preference to the American manufacture if they could get it at the same price.


Andrew Ross McMaster: What I said was that
Canadians would always buy, under free trade conditions, where they could get the best value for their money, and my belief is that the American people are governed by precisely the same business considerations.


John Arthur Clark: Seattle
1-36 x 5	High lead block at $337.25	
$337	251-	18 x 2	Return block at $93.50	
93	502-	12 x 21	Moving blocks at $68.00	
136	004-12 x 2i	Haulback blocks at $37.00	
148	004-18 x 3	Loading blocks at $106.25	
425	002-10 x 2i	Loading jacks at $63.75	
127	50

I have many protests from the manufacturers, but I will consider only one more. This is a well known company operating with English capital. I refer to the Vancouver Engineering Works. During the war they employed a total of 375 hands, and today they have only about 200. This is what they say:
We emphatically piotest against any reduction in the tariff on logging cars. Last year we commenced manufacturing these. They had always been imported previously. Our product is absolutely satisfactory and is standard in every respect and is guaranteed by us to be the equal or better of the imported article. We sell these cars for $1,750 Vancouver; the American price is $1,900 and our actual cost of labour and material is $1,442 without allowing anything for overhead and profit. If duty is reduced we shall have to cease manufacturing. We cannot reduce our price any further and cannot hope to secure the business unless our price is substantially below American, as the loggers, who have American sympathies, will buy their product every day on an even price basis. We had hoped to build up a first-class logging car industry here, but now the government has blasted our hopes and wrecked our initial investment.
I would point out that in every logging car built by this company they incorporate equipment made by our steel and other industries of an approximate value of $500. Is that of any advantage to this country? Apparently not in the estimation of the government, for they have wiped out the duties on many of the articles going into the construction of these cars and on agricultural and other implements. This will spell ruin for our steel industry and it is done in order that some of our manufacturing concerns may be permitted to buy from the United States various component parts entering into their finished product.
I turn to agricultural implements. It has been estimated by various speakers that if the farmers actually got the reduction in duty there would be a very small sum of money

coming to them annually as a result. I do not admit that there would be any, because any saving would be more than offset by the destruction of their home market. But I wonder if the Progressive party realize the effect of the budget proposals on the agricultural implement industry? I notice by yesterday's paper that prior to the bringing down of the budget the government passed an order in council abrogating the special provision enabling the American manufacturer to invoice his goods to Canada at 5 per cent less than the market price. Instead, he must invoice his goods and pay duty on the basis of the price payable by the American purchaser. What does that mean? Supposing the grain grower of this country wanted to buy an implement from the United States which was valued and sold in the American market for $100; 'last year the American manufacturer could have invoiced that implement to the Canadian grain grower for $95. to which would have been added 10 per cent duty, or $9.50, making a total of $104.50. This year the government has reduced the duty from 10 to 6 per cent-a reduction of 4 per cent. The American manufacturer must now invoice his implement to the Canadian farmer at $100, the latter pays 6 per cent duty, and the result is that the implement is laid down here for $106. Did the government bell my Progressive friends anything about this order in council before they accepted the budget proposals? Is the Progressive party prepared to accept the budget with such a condition attached? Is this in line with the platform of the Progressive party?


Mr. McCONTCA:: When my hon. friend's
government allowed the article to be invoiced at 95 per cent, did the manufacturer sell it at $95, or did he put on another $5?


John Arthur Clark: Which manufacturer?


Thomas Henry McConica: Your foreign manufacturer who sent in his goods invoiced at 95 per cent. Did he sell them at 95 per cent?


John Arthur Clark: Yes.


Thomas Henry McConica: Then would he not invoice them at 90?


John Arthur Clark: Why?


Thomas Henry McConica: He invoiced them at 5
per cent below what he sold them for.


John Arthur Clark: Under the dumping act he could not invoice them at 90.


Thomas Henry McConica: That was the provision.


John Arthur Clark: No, not at all. My hon.
friend is altogether wrong, and if he will allow me to explain the situation once more

The Budget-Mr. Clark
I shall be pleased to do so. If the American market price of the implement was $100, the manufacturer would be permitted to invoice it to Canada at $95, and its selling price would be $95 plus duty at 10 per cent, bringing the -total price to $104.50. Certainly the American manufacturer would sell his product to the-consumer in this country for $95 in order to undercut the Canadian manufacturer. But to-day as a result of the order in council to which I have referred, and which was not announced by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), my hon. friend must pay $106 for the same article. What good is it going to do him? That is the question.
In pointing out how the budget affects the mining industry, I might preface my remarks by stating that a telegram has just come into my hands from the secretary of the Mining Association of British Columbia to the effect that in the opinion of the association the proposed reduction of duty on mining machinery will not materially benefit the mining industry of that province. That has always been my opinion. The very first thing that is going to happen as a result of the budget is that many mining companies will have to close down their mines, because the ore which has heretofore been used by Canadian manufacturers in the building of their machinery will no longer be required by them as they will be compelled to go out of business, and the Americans will ship into this country American machinery made with materials fabricated from American ores.
Let me give an illustration of what might happen in Canada if we adopted a proper policy towards the mining industry. For my purpose I will take the asbestos mining industry in the province of Quebec. Last year our production of all minerals was worth $180,-
000.000, of which the asbestos industry in Quebec produced $7,500,000, or about one-twenty-fifth of our total mineral production. There are two American companies which have their manufacturing plants in the United States, they are the Johns-Manville Company and the Keesby Mattinson Company. These two companies own mines in the province of Quebec and they produced last year nearly one-half of the asbestos produced in that province, shipped it over to their manufacturing plants, refined it and turned out the finished product there. For the past three or four years the asbestos mining industry of the province of Quebec has been flat on its back. No dividends have been paid, and some of the companies are going into liquidation.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Will the hon. member
allow me to say-


John Arthur Clark: I will allow the hon. gentleman a question, that is all.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would be glad to
know where the hon. member got his information that the asbestos industries of the province of Quebec are not paying dividends.


John Arthur Clark: Well, I got my information
from the Annual Financial Review. I do not think I said that none of them were paying dividends; what I say is that the industry is flat on its back. I ask the hon. member to name the companies in the province of Quebec-and I will accept his statement-that are paying dividends to-day.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The Amalgamated Asbestos Corporation passed its dividend on its common stock, but is still paying regularly its dividend on its preferred stock.


John Arthur Clark: That may be interpreted
as meaning that this company is still meeting its bonded indebtedness.


Andrew Ross McMaster: And paying dividends
on its preferred stock.


John Arthur Clark: It is the same thing.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It is not the same
thing.


John Arthur Clark: It proves my statement.
There are in the province of Quebec sixteen concerns in the asbestos business; my hon. friend can name one that has paid a dividend on its preferred stock. Can he tell me the capitalization of that company?


Andrew Ross McMaster: The capitalization of
that company amounts to millions; if I mistake not, it is about $8,000,000. It is a combination of most of the asbestos mines in and about Black Lake and Thetford, and I think produces about half, not more, of the asbestos production in the province of Quebec.


John Arthur Clark: I have the figures and have had them verified by the companies themselves. My hon. friend is absolutely wrong in his statement. Somebody says "as usual;" I will not be so unkind.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would be glad if the hon. member would inform the House in what respect I am wrong.


John Arthur Clark: I will inform my hon. friend; unfortunately it is taking time, that is the only trouble. The largest producer in the province of Quebec was the Johns-Manville Company with 53,000 tons. The next largest producer was the Asbestos Corporation of Canada with 39,000 tons.
The Budget-Mr. Clark


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is the company
I am referring to. It used to be called the Amalgamated Asbestos Corporation of Canada.


John Arthur Clark: I am glad my hon. friend
gives me that. He said that this corporation produced at least one-half the asbestos production of the province of Quebec. Just to show how far wrong he is in his unfortunate statement to the House, I may point out that the total production of asbestos last year in the. province of Quebec was 228,345 tons, and this company that he says is paying dividends produced 39,345 tons. However, I did not propose to get into any argument on that score. My point is this: That two of these companies are American companies; they are manufacturing all their product in the United States from probably over one-half the asbestos production of the province of Quebec; and while our companies are all flat on their backs the Johns-Manville Company in the United States paid a ten per cent dividend in 1919, the same in 1920, the same in 1921, the same in 1922 and in 1922 they paid a 40 per cent bonus to their shareholders. Is it of no value to this country to have manufacturing concerns here, or must we continue the policy of allowing our resources to go to the United States and to pay dividends to the Americans instead of having the manufacturing carried out in Canada?
While we are on the question of protection, I wonder if this government informed the Progressives, when the negotiations were being carried on for their support through these proposals, that the duty on lead pencils, an industry peculiar to the Prime Minister's constituency-


Robert Forke: Before the hon. gentleman
goes any further I would like some information about those negotiations, because I do not know anything about them.


John Arthur Clark: Perhaps I am wrong. The leader of the Progressive party, before negotiations could be opened, hastened to assure the government that the proposals would have his support.


Robert Forke: I would again ask the hon. gentleman where he got his information.


John Arthur Clark: It was given in the House once before. The Winnipeg Free Press, I think, was quoted in that connection.


Robert Forke: I am not responsible for the Winnipeg Free Press.


John Arthur Clark: But that is only one industry. I wonder if the industry that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) is interested in, the refrigerator industry-I wonder if the Progressives-


James Alexander Robb: Or the cream separator industry.


John Arthur Clark: -were informed that no change in the tariff was to be made. I wonder if the Progressives were informed that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), whom I am glad to see here had seen to it that the boot and shoe industry of Quebec would get some special concessions by way of sales tax, special concessions which the minister did not see fit to hand out to the salmon canning industry of British Columbia, which is more on its back than the boot and shoe industry? Nobody knows better than the Minister of Justice-he should have known better than any member of the government-that the salmon canning industry of British Columbia needed looking after, needed encouragement as no other industry in this country needed it. Yet we find that it is singled out-


Ernest Lapointe: Will my hon. friend permit me?


John Arthur Clark: Yes, a question.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, only a question.
Does my hon. friend say that the interests of the boot and shoe manufacturers were properly safeguarded?


John Arthur Clark: Yes, although a great deal more could have been done.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, I see.


John Arthur Clark: I quite agree that the boot and shoe industry should be fairly treated, and I think more could have been done for it. But what I am objecting to-


Ernest Lapointe: What would you suggest?


John Arthur Clark: -is that a minister of the Crown should take advantage of his position to protect the industries of his own constituency to the exclusion of the industries in ths country generally. I see the Acting Minister of Finance in his seat. What about flour? Is there any one commodity used' by a greater proportion of the people of this country than flour? Was the duty on flour tampered with? Not at all. The Acting Minister of Finance was bringing down the budget, and he had control of the situation.


Ernest Lapointe: Keep to the boots and
shoes, I like that.

The Budget-Mr. Clark


John Arthur Clark: I am sorry the Minister of
Railways is not in his seat, because I come now to what is perhaps the most interesting of all-the Canada Foundries and Forgings, Limited, Hon. George P. Graham, vice-president. Now what did this cabinet see fit to do to help that industry? Perhaps my hon. friends to my left would be good enough to turn to the tariff schedule and look at item 450a. Previously that item was contained in 450, and I will read item 450 as it was before the present budget proposals came down:
Shovels and spades of iron or steel, n.o.p.: shovel and spade blanks, and iron or steel cut to shape for the same; and lawn mowers; British preferential tariff, 20 per cent; Intermediate, 30 per cent; General, 32J per cent.
Now what happened1? We find that a new item has been provided for lawn mowers, which are manufactured by the Canada Foundries and Forgings, Limited, of which company the Minister of Railways is vice-president, and item 450, from which lawn mowers have been eliminated reduces the duty on shovels and spades of iron and steel, etcetera, to 10, 15 and 20 per cent. A special item, 450a, has been made, for lawn mowers, which retain the old duty of 20, 30 and 324 per cent. Is that the sort of treatment my hon. friends to my left are going to stand for? Are they approving of a budget such as that? Are they going to get up and vote for it?
There are other industries; in fact, I think we could probably go right through every member of the government and find that some action has been taken on the part of each minister to look after his colleagues. Take the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart). He is a party to the retention of the same duty on lawn mowers as existed last year. He is a party to taking that article out of the old item and1 putting it in a new class by itself, so that the industry can be protected. What I am surprised at is that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock), "who must sit in the cabinet council, has not taken steps under the Combines Act. Surely there never was such a combine .as has been exhibited by the ministers of the government this year in protecting industries in which they are interested themselves.
I cannot understand why the hon. member for Brome sits down where he is sitting; I cannot understand why he does not go back where he belongs; I cannot see why he does not change places with the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. He would help the government in their policy of sounding the 104
death knell of protection. I was very interested last night to hear the hon. member's denunciation of the anti-dumping law. He waved his arms about enthusiastically and said it was a most pernicious instrument and he hoped the day would soon come when it would be eliminated altogether. The hon. member might just as well get up and say that he looks forward to the day when there will be no manufacturing concerns in the , Dominion of Canada.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Nonsense.


John Arthur Clark: The hon. member says
" nonsense." Now I will quote from an official report to show what the American people think of this nonsensical doctrine that has been adopted by Canada and is represented by the anti-dumping act. These figures are from a report of the Bureau of Foreign Commerce of the United States, from July 1, 1919, to April 30, 1920, showing the dumping into Canada prior to the anti-dumping law coming into force. They boast of it in their official reports. Here are some figures. In the boot and shoe industry, and I am sure this is one of the things that moved the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to see that the boot and shoe industry in the province of Quebec was at least partially protected, I find that children's boots and shoes which sold at an average price per pair of $1.84 to all countries sold at an average price to Canada of 96 cents, or just about one-half. What would happen to our boot and "shoe industry under those conditions? Does the hon. member for Brome suggest that our boot and shoe industry in this country could thrive if the trusts in the United States over whom we have no control, with their mass production, were allowed to throw on the Canadian market boots and shoes at less than cost, as they admit they did do, and as they would do again at the first opportunity? If we allowed that it would drive every manufacturing concern out of business in this country, and then what would happen? After the manufacturing concerns are gone, where would my hon. friend's home market be without any industrial centres in the Dominion?


Robert Forke: I would like to inform the
hon. member that in Manitoba last winter there were lots of children unable to go to school for want of boots, and they would be glad to get them for 90 cents a pair.


John Arthur Clark: What does the hon. member think of conditions in England? Does

The Budget-Mr. Clark

he think there are not children there in the same condition, or in Ireland, or in Scotland, my hon. friend's own homeland, in Glasgow, for instance? Does he think there are none there who cannot afford to buy boots? Of course there are, and I do not doubt that there are in Winnipeg, and Toronto, Montreal and in Vancouver, and on the farms of this country also.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: It is not forty below
zero in Glasgow.


Robert Forke: The hon. member has asked me a question. I should like to state that some hon. gentlemen to my right take a particular pleasure in always talking about the terrible conditions that exist in Great Britain. I do not like to place this statement on Hansard but at the same time I believe there are conditions in Canada today just as bad as there are in Great Britain.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is humour,
Scotch humour.


Robert Forke: No, it is not humour.


John Arthur Clark: I will answer my hon.
friend in this way. In the United States we find from official figures that the average wages paid there are three times higher than those paid in England-


Robert Forke: That does not count for
anything.


John Arthur Clark: 
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Did the
hon. member for Neepawa not include municipal taxation?


John Arthur Clark: Quite so. I read his statement. I said federal, provincial and municipal taxes. But what is the total provincial expenditure for the whole Dominion of Canada? I am quite sure it is under $150,000,000 per annum. Add that to the Dominion expenditures and you see the enormous sum that the hon. gentleman suggests the farmers are paying in taxes. I think every Progressive member and every farmer in this country will admit that the other members of the community are paying taxes in at least the same proportion as the farmers in this country are paying. I have figures that would suggest a greater proportion, although I do not propose to use them. But if the other classes of the Dominion of Canada are paying taxes on that basis, that would mean that we are paying taxes to the extent of approximately $1,500,000,000 per annum or, if I mistake not, about two-thirds of the national debt of Canada. Such statements as these are palpably ridiculous. The hon. member suggests a round-table conference. I am heartily in accord with such a conference; I am heartily in accord with sitting down with the farmers of Canada and considering what can be done with their industry. I admit quite frankly that I am no expert on agricultural activities, but we expect the farmers to admit just as frankly that they are not experts on industrial activities and are not entirely qualified to get up in their places and quote economic theories which, I submit, are a hundred years old to show that the industrial production of this country would be stimulated if we permitted the Americans to dump their boots, shoes and other products into this country without a duty and without an anti-dumping law.
On the question of the sales tax I want to ask the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) to make a note of this situation. Last year I brought to the notice of the govern-
The Budget-Mr. Clark

ment an industry in my constituency, a large creosoting industr3r in which there is invested nearly $400,000 of capital. This industry makes creosoted piling and creosoted railway ties. I asked that protection should be given to that industry, but that, of course, was refused. I was, however, assured by the Minister of Finance and by his tariff expert that the sales tax would be eliminated from the creosote which entered into that product. I know that the Minister of Finance intended to do that, but the Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Bureau) interpreted the act otherwise, and the result was that, instead of the industry being subjected to a sales tax of 2| per cent on every gallon of creosote that went into its product, it was increased to 6 per cent, although the Minister of Finance intended, as he stated to me, that it should be free from the sales tax. I fancy that the legal interpretation of the act prohibited the Minister of Customs from placing that interpretation upon it, but the result was that that concern has been paying 6 per cent upon its creosote oil. It has in stock to-day 380,000 gallons which retails at about 95 cents a gallon and is sold wholesale at about 60 cents a gallon. There we have an outlay of about $200,000. MJr point is this, 50 per cent of the value of that company's product consists of the raw creosote that goes into the timber. Therefore, the effect of the law as it stood prior to the bringing down of this budget, was that on every stick of creosoted timber that came into this country, from the United States, a subsidy of 3 per cent was given to the Americans. That has worked out to the disadvantage of that company and I will show how. The Vancouver Harbour Board, the Dominion government itself, the Minister of Public Works, use that product in the wharves of the Dominion of Canada. That company cannot compete with their American competitors in Seattle who ship into Canada large quantities of their piling and sell them in the Canadian market at a price less than the Canadian company can manufacture for, with a subsidy in favour of the Americans of 3 per cent on every stick that comes in. Just the other day that company lost a large contract because its price was $3,000 in excess of the American price. That $3,000 I have no doubt would be accounted for by the subsidy paid by the Dominion to the American manufacturer. I complain of this sort of treatment to our own people and the encouragement of the American manufacturer at their expense. I realize that the situation has arisen through a bona fide error which the gov-
ernment has corrected this year. But it has been corrected without any compensation to the Canadians; no rebate of the sales tax has been given on sales tax paid on 380,000 gallons. This could be done under the Audit Act and I trust that steps will be taken to provide this compensation, because it is certainly only fair.
All of these things confirm the impression that exists in the minds of the people of the country that Canada is adopting a policy of subserviency to the United States. I would suggest to the government that, rather than a policy of subserviency, we should adopt a bold policy towards the United States; even if the government adopted a policy similar to that which they have followed in the case of the Mother Country it would suffice. What folly it is for us in Canada to continue to rely upon the 'bankrupt countries of Europe for our markets, when there exists to the south of us a country that controls the gold reserve of the world and which is capable of paying us real money? That country would be forced to buy from us if we adopted a policy similar to that which they have pursued towards us. If we did that, instead of having a balance of trade against us and in favour of the United States to the time of nearly $200,000,000 we could with the greatest ease, turn the tables and have a balance of trade of hundreds of millions in our favour.
I suggest that this policy which the government has adopted is being dictated by a minority, by the Progressive party and by the grain-growing interests of the country. The total vote polled at the last election was 3,000,000. The Liberals gained 1,296,000, the Progressives 769,000 and the Conservatives 971,000; and the total number of voters on the list was 4,722,000. So that the Progressives, who I say are dictating the policy of the government, represent less than one-sixth of the total voters of this country; and I venture to say that of the 1,296,000 persons who voted for the Liberals, 75 per cent did. so in the belief, or at least in the hope, that this government would continue the Laurier-Fielding tariff, or a policy practically the same as the National Policy of Sir John A. Macdonald. I repeat, a minority of the members of this House and of the people in the country is dictating this policy of sounding the death knell of protection, and it is unjustifiable to a degree. If this government washes to follow a manly course and has a true sense of the responsibility which has been placed upon its shoulders by the people of the country, it will submit the whole question in a clean-cut issue to the electorate.

The Budget-Mr. Lapierre
In conclusion I want to re-affirm, that the financial statement presented by the Acting Minister of Finance is a gross misrepresentation of the actual financial condition of the country; and that the minister has adopted a new system of accounting. The minister has eliminated expenditures of large amounts actually required to meet railway deficits, hitherto always properly added to the public expenditures and taken into account when computing the national debt. Under this new system we can never accurately determine the national debt, and Canada's credit will consequently suffer because investors in Dominion securities will not be able to determine the margin of security; in fact, they will not know whether the actual indebtedness of the country is greater or less than the total assets. Furthermore, I reiterate that this policy of the government is being dictated by a minority of the members of the House, representing less than one-sixth of the voters of the country. These dictators represent sectional interests, and no sound government can be carried on for the general welfare of the country which is dictated by sectional interests.


Mr. SEXSMITH:: Not even the manufacturers.


John Arthur Clark: Not even the manufacturers, no. This course means not only the wiping-out of the customs duty but the repeal of the anti-dumping law, thus enabling the American trusts to dump their goods in Canada until Canadian industry is dead, and '-hereafter they will be able to sell to us ai, whaever prices they may fix, without any controlling voice on our part. There is no mandate for such a course of action, and the only manly thing for the government to do, if it has any manly qualities left, is to take this issue to the people, ask for their opinion, and see what they say in the matter.


Mr. E. A. LAPIERRE (Nipissing):: I wish to associate myself with the speakers who have preceded me in expressing my regrets at the absence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and the hope that we may soon again see him in his accustomed seat. The Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) is to be congratulated upon his first budget; he has achieved this year what has been the ambition of his predecessors, namely, a balanced budget. The budget shows a surplus of revenue over ordinary expenditure of $67,750,000 and it will reduce by $24,000,000 the burden of taxation which has borne so heavily upon the agricultural and labouring classes. The
returns for the eleven months ended February 29 indicate a continued healthy growth of Canadian and foreign trade. Already both imports and exports exceed those of 1923, and the balance of trade favourable to Canada for the eleven months is $158,424,707. The balance of trade is regarded by many persons as the barometer indicating trade conditions and we must accept these figures as indisputable proof of a steady return to stability. We are gradually emerging from conditions created by the enormous expenditures and , losses incurred in the world's war, and in common with all other countries we have had to adapt ourselves to entirely new conditions.
I feel safe in saying that no other country can look forward to the future with more confidence and optimism than can Canada.
Senator Ingalls of the United States said somewhere that out of every great struggle some man or sect or nation has emerged with higher possibilities, greater opportunities, broader liberties, purer religion and a greater capacity for happiness. I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that Canada is now emerging from its participation in the world's war with greater opportunities for the future. Possessing a sturdy and law-abiding population of instinctive common sense, with unlimited natural resources which all the world requires, with water-power and transportation facilities unequalled anywhere, Canada must, if its people will unite in one national effort and every class of our population do its duty and contribute its fair share to the restoration of our losses and the payment of the debt incurred by war, soon return to normalcy. In order to achieve this end, which is the ambition of every true Canadian, it will be necessary to forget that there exists in Canada an East and a West. There is no room here for sectionalism. The welfare of Canada is the concern of all.
One of the most contentious questions we have had to deal with since confederation is the tariff-always a most difficult problem for a nation that has industries to protect, agriculture to encourage and a wage-earning class of consumers demanding a' high standard of living. The adjustment of a tariff in such a way that it will bear equally on all classes of society, without interfering with the progress or stability of industry is, as I have said, a difficult problem. Our tariff has been the rock upon which governments have been most frequently wrecked. Every government has endeavoured to evolve a tariff policy which would be acceptable to all. the various classes that compose our population. And it must be admitted that to the liberal party is due tho
The Budget-Mr. Lapierre

When this has been successfully accomplished, a more economical system of distribution must be found. In Canada to-day we have a highly efficient but very expensive system of distribution. From the time our commodities leave the producer and reach the consumer they pass through the hands of several middlemen, such as wholesalers, jobbers, agents, retailers, and so forth, all of whom tack on from 5 to 50 per cent to the cost of the goods as they pass them along from one to the other and finally to the consumer. There are too many middlemen engaged in distributing commodities. The streets of our cities and towns and villages are lined with stores, shops, emporiums, bazaars, and so forth, many of them engaged in the same line of business, and most of them getting more for the service they render than the wages earned by the producers. The office buildings of our cities are honeycombed with offices of agents and representatives of manufacturing companies, most of them getting more for the services they render than the wages earned by the producers. When you have reduced the cost of distribution and transportation you will have taken the first step towards relieving the wage earner of much of the burden he is asked to bear.
By reducing the tariff on instruments of production such as farming, mining, lumbering and logging machinery, the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) has made the first serious move towards fostering our mining and lumbering industries, a movement of momentous importance which will be received with great satisfaction by the mining and lumbering interests, especially in New Ontario and northern Quebec-that vast region possessing potential wealth greater than any other area of its size in the world; a region which is pronounced by eminent geologists as the greatest exposure of mineral wealth known to science; a region that is destined to take a foremost place as a producer of mineral wealth.
The development of our natural resources will help to solve our transportation problems, will give employment to thousands of wage earners, and the great consumption of various commodities, required in the development of these industries will stimulate trade and commerce throughout Canada.
The importance of mineral resources in the economic structure of Canada has been vastly magnified in modern times and these resources are the basis of industrial strength and progress. Canada, occupying the northern half of the North American continent, had already achieved wide publicity as an agricultural and lumbering country, and for [Mr. Lapierre.3
that reason the people of Canada have been slow in realizing the amazing progress this country has made as a producer of precious metals, and of appreciating vshat a potential source of wealth lies hidden in the cold embrace of mother earth in the northern hinterland.
The pre-Cambrian area of Canada, surrounding Hudson bay, and occupying more than half of the entire surface of the country, is described by Dr. C. V. Corless, the eminent geologist of the Mond Nickel Company, as the greatest single exposure of mother earth's basement in the world, and it is there we are finding her richest treasures stored for future use. The pre-Cambrian formation appears right across northern Ontario. It extends in from the province of Quebec and extends out to Manitoba. The mines in northern Ontario are on the outer edge of the pre-Cambrian formation.
So far as I am aware, no one has undertaken to specially examine and set forth the broad facts of our mineral trade in their bearing upon the commercial position of the Dominion as a whole. The Dominion's annual deficit of mineral productions, when measured in dollars, is almost staggering, as these figures given in a speech delivered by Mr. Charles Camsell before the Canadian Institute of Mines and Metallurgy in Toronto last March will show:	.
Mineral Exports and Imports, 1923
Trading surplus (x) or trading
Exports Imports deficit (-) Iron and steel. .. $ 67,000,000 $173,700,000 -106,700,000 Non-ferrous
metals	 56,800,000	42,400,000 x 14,400,000
Non-metallic
minerals	 29,500,000	165,100,000 -135,600,000
Totals	$153,300,000 $381,200,000 -227,900,000
The deficit of exports as compared with imports is $227,900,000. We have a small balance in non-ferrous metals as the result of exchange on such metals as silver, gold, copper and nickel, in various forms. In 1923, our sales were sufficient to cover only $40 out of every $100 dollars worth of mineral bought abroad. Out of every 100 dollars worth of American mineral bought in 1923, by Canada, $54 took the form of mineral commodities.
Our total purchase of non-mineral products from the United States alone in 1923 amounted to $331,000,000. Furthermore, the United States sold to the Dominion $100 of mineral products for every $20 they bought from us. Over 80 per cent of Canada's sales to foreign countries are drawn from agricultural vegetable products, animal products, and

The Budget-Mr. Lapierre
wood and paper products. The products of our mines and mineral manufacturing industries in various forms of iron, steel and nonferrous metals and mineral metals are only 15 per cent of the Dominion's sales abroad. As a people, our activities in international trade are confined to the "trading of our raw manufactured farm and forest products for the minerals and textiles of other countries."
The most remarkable feature of the preCambrian formation in northern Ontario is the variety of metallic and non-metallic ores, found in a comparatively small area within a radius of a few hundred miles. Gold, silver, nickel and copper mines are operating with increasing production, and the country, as yet, has really only been scratched.
There are three distinct camps within this area-the Sudbury district producing nickel, the Porcupine district producing gold, and the Cobalt area producing silver. The mines of the Sudbury district are now producing nickel and copper at the rate of close to twenty-five million dollars a year, and are running neck and neck with the gold mines of Ontario for the position of leading place in the mining industries of this province.
Mining operations of the International Nickel Company are centered at Creighton mine, where work continues to disclose enormous resources of nickel-copper ore, extending far beyond previously known limits. Some of the recently developed ore contains between 30 and 35 per cent metal as compared with a general average of from 5 to 6 per cent. Approximately 75,000 tons of material are being hoisted monthly from the Creighton mine, of which about 60,000 tons go to the smelter. The ore is yielding 5 per cent metal, in the proportion of two of nickel to one of copper. With nickel commanding about 25 cents a pound, and copper having a market value of 14 cents to 15 cents per pound, the company is producing a value of upwards of $1,300,000 per month, or at the rate of $16,000,000 a year.
The Mond Nickel Company is now employing between 800 and 900 men and is handling about 1,000 tons of ore daily, the operation being at the rate of about one-third that of the International Nickel Company.
The company holds about 29,000 acres of mining land and has a 1,500-ton smelter at Coniston, with refining works at Clydach, South Wales. In one section of the property, work has been carried on to a depth of 3,600 feet.
The British North American Company has a smelter capacity of 1,600 tons per day with a refinery located at Deschenes, Quebec. The
combined facilities are sufficient to produce nickel at the rate of 15,000,000 pounds annually. About 1,000 tons per day have been the recent rate of operation. The nickel and copper contents of the area have a ratio of about 55 of copper to 100 of nickel. Ore reserves on the British American are made up of about 16,000,000 tons of ore. These three corporations form the nickel group of our mining industries in the north and produce 85 per cent of the world's production of nickel
A general summary of the production is as follows:	Up to the middle of the current
year, the mines of the Sudbury district had produced a little over a quarter of a billior dollars, made up of $185,000,000 in nickel, $70,-
000.000 in copper and about $3,750,000 in platinum. The mines of the district have paid over $60,000,000 in wages, and $85,000,000 in dividends.
The silver production of northern Ontario is now over 13,000 tons. The province of Ontario has produced 13,744\ tons of silver according to the figures compiled up to June 30th of this year and the production of 1923 was materially ahead of that of 1922. I will give the figures of the silver production by decades, starting with the first year of actual shipment in 1898:
Year	Value
1898	$	51,960
1908	 9,136,830
1918	 17,415,882
And the total for the entire period of production from 1898 to 1923 is $209,986,416. During the same period dividends amounting to $95,888,818 have been paid.
On motion of Mr. Lapierre the debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock, the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, May 1, 1924