[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. STEWART (for the Prime Minister) moved:
That the name of Mr. Bertrand be substituted for that of Mr. Brown on the select standing committee on banking and commerce.
That the name of Mr. Brown be substituted for that of Mr. Gardiner on the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization.
That the names of Messrs. Bradette and Smith (Stormont) be substituted for those of Messrs. Morin and Telford on the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
That the name of Mr. Telford be substituted for that of Mr. Bradette on the select standing committee on printing.
That the name of Miss Macphail he substituted for that of Mr. Kellner on the select standing committee on the parliamentary restaurant.
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: 1.	How much money was collected in the form of income tax during the years 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929?
2.	How many persons in Canada earned incomes over $1,500 during the above years?
3.	How many persons paid income tax during above years ?

Questions


Mr. MALCOLM (for Minister of National Revenue):: 1.
Fiscal Years	Amount
1925-26		. .$ 55,571,961 57
1926-27		.. 47.386,309 22
1927-28		.. 56,571,047 39
1928-29		.. 59,422,323 25
2. No information.	
3.	
	No, of
Fiscal Years	Persons
1925-26			 215,277
1926-27		
1927-28		
1928-29			 137,191


IMPORTATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES
Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	How many new auto trucks were imported during the calendar year 1929?
2.	How many new passenger automobiles were imported during the calendar year 1929?
3.	What was the total value of such imports and the amount of duty collected in each case?


Mr. MALCOLM (for Minister of National Revenue):: 1.	5,278. New and second-hand.
2.	39,446. New and second-hand.
3.
Value Import duty Auto trucks.. ..	..$6,817,176 $1,346,729 41
Passenger automobiles 32,605,958	7,579,574 86
The above figures are for total imports as there is no separate compilation made of new and used trucks or automobiles.


YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	What is the area of Yukon territory?
2.	What is the area of Northwest Territories?
3.	What is the population of Northwest Territories, showing, (a) whites, (b) Indians, (c) Eskimos, (d) others?
4; Are adult Eskimos, being British subjects, residents of Canada for the period required by Dominion Elections Act, qualified to vote at elections of a member of the House of Commons?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	207,076 square miles.
2.	1,309,682 square miles.
3.	The last census taken in 1921 gives the population of the Northwest Territories as follows: (a) whites, 820; (b) Indians, 3,873; (c) Eskimos, 3,242; (d) others, 53; total, 7,988.
4.	Yes, Eskimos who are British subjects by birth or naturalization.


L. A. GIROUX
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Did L. A. Giroux, Liberal member of the legislature of Alberta, make a trip to Yukon in 1929 at the expense of the Dominion government?
2.	If so, in what capacity was he sent by the government to Yukon?
3.	What department of government so employed him ?
4.	What was the cost of his trip, how much as remuneration, how much as travelling expenses, including cost of airplanes?
5.	For what purpose was he sent to Yukon?
6.	Did said Giroux make any report to a minister, deputy minister, official or department of government, pursuant to his said trip to Yukon? If so, to whom?
7.	Did said Giroux, while in Yukon, confer with anybody about Yukon electoral district?
8.	Was any proposition in this connection submitted to the government or to any member of the government? If so, what action has been taken thereon?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Accompanied) director of Northwest Territories and Yukon branch as legal officer in connection with proposed revision of Northwest Territories ordinances, game regulation, and other matters relating to administration in the north.
3.	Interior.
4.	(a) $3,791; (b) $3,150; (c) $641.
5.	Answered by 2.
6.	Yes: to Minister of the Interior.
7.	No information.
8.	No.


ST. JOHN HARBOUR COMMISSION
Mr. MacLAREN:: 1.	Have certain lots of land in West Saint John, New Brunswick, been decently acquired for the Saint John harbour commission for harbour improvements?
2.	If so, what sums of money were paid for these lots'?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Total
amount
City Lot Number	land and
buildings
Loti-Block X	
$11,800	00Lot 1-Block Y	
148	37Lots 2, 3 & 4-Block Y	
958	97North Lot-Block C	
11,500	00Centre Lot-Block C	
1,001	88South Lot-Block C	
1,000	00North i Lot 27	
2,504	02iSou'th | Lot 27	
4,514	87Lot 29	
4,489	67Part Lot 30	
675	00Part 1	&	2-Block	A	
2,503	35Part 1	&	2-Block	A	
4,630	95Part 1	&	2-Block	A	
7,840	45Part 1	&	2-Block	A	
6,100	00Part 2-3-4-Block A	
3,611 15Part 3-4-5-Block A	
5,000 00
Questions

Total
amount
City Lot Number	land and
buildings
Part 4 & 5-Block A	
4,110	58Part 5-Block A	
3,700	00Lot 6-Blode A	
3,320	25Lots 11-12-13-14 & 15-Block A. . ..	42,750	00Lots 9-10-18-19 & 20-Block D.. ..	45,000	00Lots. 1-2-3-Block D	
25,000	00Lots 11-12-13-Block D	
2,100	00Part Lot 891	
14,000	00Part Lot 891	
4,179	12890	
8,068	00Lot 888	
5,530 00Lot 887	
4.372 15Lot 892	
14.000 00Lots 893 & 894	
5,031	25Lot 910	
9,043 00Lots 909 & 911 to 914 inclusive.. ..	69,587 50Lot 916	
5,825 00Lot 930	
9,614 15
13,614 15
Lot 931	 40,000 00
Lot 932	 25,000	00
Lot 933	 16.556 37
Lot 950	
18,000	00Lot 951	
51,250	00Lot 952	
8,226	50Lot 953	
30,000	00Lot 955	
5,250	00Lot 956	
3,804	00Lot 942	
16,835	00Let 970	
20,500	00Lot 971	
18,500	00Lots 972 to 977 inclusive	
41.834 00Lot 966	
7,906	25Lots 978 & 979	
1,000	00Lots 980 & 981	
558	24
Lots 987-988-989-994-695-996 part of
990-901-992-993-986-997	
55,000	00Lot 962	
3,767	50Lots 1024 to 1039 inclusive	
5,000 00
Part of Lots 990-991-992-993-986997 and Lots 982-983-984-985-998
to 1021 inclusive	
28,000	00South i Lot 2-Block X	
2,802	30Lot 3 & part Lot 2-Block X.. ..	13,500	00Lot 4-Block X	
10,000	00Part Lot 27	
475	00East i Lot 28	
3,000	00Part Lot	28	
3,024	00Part Lot	30	
5,500	00East half	Lot	33	
4,600	00East half	Lot	31	
1,600	00Lot 32	
600	00Part Lot 31	
700	00West i Lot 31	
575	00Lot 34	
4,804	95Part Lot	33	
6,418	00Part Lot	33	
10,857	82Lot 35	
3,006	65Lot 37	
4,231	56Part Lot 38	
3,750	00Part Lot 38	
8,466	07Lot 39	
4,000	00Lot 40; Part Lot 41	
10,000	00Part Lot	41	
1,000	00Part Lot	16	
2,900	00Part Lot	22	
Lots 3-4-13-14 & Part Lots 5 & 15-
Block G	
25,000	00Lot 889	
7,500	00Lot 896	
3,200	00Lot 918	
7,843	75Lot 927	
5,336	60Lot 926	
2,518	71

Total
amount
City Lot Number	land and
buildings
Lot 960	
1,429	78Lot 969	
40,000	00Lot 968	
11,000	00Lot 967	
35,000	00Lots 964 & 965	
15,000 00Lot 963	
1,000	00Lot 925	
5,920	00Lot 927	
5,250	00Lot 936	
7,500	00Lot 938	
4,750	00Lot 939	
4,000	00Lot 944	
4,500	00Lot 945	
4,500	00Lot 947	
3,505	00Lot 957	
10,000	00Lot 959	
9,000	00Lot 1064	
2,800	00Lot 4-Block X	
10,000	00


CUSTOMS COLLECTOR AT OSHAWA
Mr. KAISER:: 1.	When does the government propose to make an appointment to the office of customs collector at Oshawa?
2.	Will such appointment be made by _ the department or the Civil Service Commission?
3.	Will this appointment be made by promotion from within the department, or a selection be made from outside the service?


Mr. MALCOLM (for Minister of National Revenue):: 1.	The appointment will not be made by the government. Requisition for the appointment of a collector has been forwarded to the Civil Service Commission.
2.	The Civil Service Commission.
3.	Appointment wild be made from the customs excise service.


WOOL IMPORTS AND EXPORTS
Mr. SENN:: 1.	What were the quantities of raw wool, noils and tops, imported into Canada during the calendar year 1929?
2.	What was the value and duty collected on the above mentioned importations?
3.	What was the value and duty collected on all other manufactured woollen goods imported during 1929 ?
4.	What quantity and value of raw wool noils and tops were exported during the year 1929?
5.	What was the value of manufactured or partially manufactured woollen goods exported during 1929?
Mr. MALCOLM;
1 and 2. Canada's imports of raw wool, noils and tops, calendar year 1929, were:
Wool	Pounds	SWool in the grease..	..	3,616,066	1,348,393
Wool, washed or scoured
but not further prepared than combed,
n.o.p	 6,651,472	3,156,560

Questions
Wool	Pounds	$Wool, pulled or sliped..	1,090,786	412,200Hair of the camel, al-	paca, goat or other like	animal, not further	prepared than combed.	727,746	209,762Total wool	12,086,070	5,126,915Noils.. ..'	455,685	214,639Worsted taps	6,684,905	4,330,269Wool, noils and tops are free of duty under	Tariff item No. 549.	3. Canada's imports of	woollen |	goods withduty collected thereon,	calendar	year 1929,were:	Value of importation.. ..	$ 40,439,225 00	Duty collected	.... 9,237,401 64	4. Canada's domestic exports of	raw wool,noils and tops, calendar	year 1929,	were:Wool	Pounds	$Wool in the .grease.. ..	5,843,016	1,569,089Wool, scoured or washed.	120,356	36,783Wool, pulled or sliped..	126,453	64,704Total wool	6,089,825	1,670,576Noils and taps	Not specified. Any
exports included under "Wool".
5.	Canada's domestic exports of manufactured or partially manufactured woollen goods, calendar year 1929, were $464,506.


IMPORTATIONS OF HIDES AND SKINS
Mr. SENN:: 1.	What was the quantity and value of hides and skins imported into Canada during the calendar years 1928-29?
2.	What was the duty collected on the above mentioned importations?
3.	What were the quantities and values of hides and skins exported during each of the years 1928 and 1929?


Mr. MALCOLM:: 1.	Canada's imports of hides and skins, calendar years 192S and 1929, were:
Years	Pounds	$1928	
58,612,800	14,750,0511929	
44,962,800	8,449,8732.	Hides and skins free of duty under Tariff item No. 599.3.	Canada's domestic exports of hides and skins, calendar years 1928 and 1929, were:Years	Pounds	$1928	
56,556,100	11,530,4561929	
54,536,300	7,968,244


PICTOU ISLAND MAIL SERVICE
Mr. CANTLEY:: .
1.	How many days during the months of December, January and February, 1929-1930, has the regular mail service to Pictou island been interrupted?
2.	What was the controlling cause of such interruption?
3.	What was the greatest period during the months of December, January and February last during which no mail was received or despatched at Pictou Island?
4.	Is the postal department satisfied with the manner in which the Pictou Island mail carrier carries out his obligations?
5.	If not, will the department take immediate action to ensure a reasonably regular postal service to and from the island?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	4.
2.	Ice conditions which have been the worst for years.
3.	Between the 14th and 28th December.
4 and 5. Yes, considering conditions.


DALESVILLE, QTJE., POST OFFICE
Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: 1.	Has the post office at Dalesville, Quebec, been closed?
2.	If so, (a) on what date, (b) for what reason, (e) when will it be reopened?
3.	How much remuneration did the postmaster there receive for 1929?
4.	On what date was the post office there originally established?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) 25th February, 1930; (b) Owing to refusal of postmistress to continue in charge for remuneration allowed by regulations and to impossibility of obtaining services of any other resident; (c) As soon as suitable candidate can be found willing to accept post office at regular salary.
3.	$181.
4.	1st June, 1853.


EXPORTATIONS OF BUTTER
Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	What quantity of butter was exported from Canada during the year 1929?
2.	To what countries and how much to each?


Mr. MALCOLM:: 1 and 2. Canada's domestic exports of butter (in pounds) by countries,
calendar year, 1929:
Countries to which exported Pounds
United Kingdom	 S00
United States	 49,200
Bermuda	 195,100
British Guiana	 73,500
British Honduras	 24,400
Questions

Countries to which exported	Pounds
British West Indies-
Barbados	 65,000
Jamaica	 144,600
Trinidad and Tobago.. ..	126,000
Other British West Indies. 141,800
China	 5,900
Costa Rica	 3,400
Cuba	 36,600
French East Indies	 1,700
Japan	 91,500
Newfoundland	 345,200
Nigeria	 100
Peru	 3,100
Philippines	 6,000
St. Pierre and Miquelon.. ..	85,600
Virgin Islands, American.. ..	900
Total	 1,400,400


IMPORTATIONS OP BUTTER
Mr. FAFARD:: What quantity of butter was imported into Canada during each month of the year, 1929,
(a)	from Australia, (b) from New Zealand, (c) from other countries, showing the amount from each?


James Malcolm: 1. Canada's imports of butter (in pounds) from (a) Australia, (b) New Zealand, (c) other countries, each month, calendar year 1929, were:
(a)	(b)	(c)From	From New	From other1929	Australia	Zealand	CountriesPounds	Pounds	PoundsJanuary. .	. 78,400	7,660,681	2,118February .	6,598,476	3,117March. . .	3,259,145	610.573April. . .	1,505,314	993.427May. . . .	. 56,000	2,337,834	249,733June. . .	421,192	2,864July. . . .	144,150	2,789August. . .	380,814	8,044September.	412,212	2,738October. .	1,901,822	6,048November	. . 56,000	2,962,128	4,602December .	. 84,000	6,180,694	2,505Total. .	. . 274,400 33,764,462	1,889,387


CANADIAN WAR MEMORIALS
Mr. CANTLEY:: 1.	Where is Canada's collection, of war paintings stored and are they safely housed as regards possible damage from dampness or discoloration?
2.	Are they now so stored or placed that they can be seen by visitors to or residents of Ottawa ?

3.	What steps are now being taken or in contemplation by the government to provide for the permanent housing and proper display of such Canadian war paintings?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	The Canadian war memorials, except those pictures now hanging on the walls of the Senate chamber, are stored in a fire proof storage room, specially prepared under the supervision of the national gallery officials, in the Auditorium building. The pictures arc completely protected from any damage due to dampness or any other unfavourable atmospheric condition.
2.	The pictures, except as noted above, are not on exhibition at present, but they can be examined by special arrangement.
3.	When construction of a new national gallery building is undertaken provision will be made for the proper housing and display of the Canadian war memorials.


EXPORT OF LIQUOR-STATISTICS
Mr. BENNETT:: 1.	How many (a) brewery, (b) distillery Dominion licences were outstanding on the first day of January, 1922, and on the first day of January in each succeeding year to the first day of January, 1930?
2.	What was the quantity of distilled spirits in licensed distilleries of Canada on the first day of January, 1922, and on the first day of January in each succeeding year to and on the first day of January, 1930?
3.	What sums were collected by the Dominion government for (a) excise tax, (b) sales tax, (c) other taxes on intoxicating liquor exported to the United States of America for the year ending 31st day of December, 1921, and in each succeeding calendar year to the year ending 31st day of December 1929?
4.	What was the total amount of income tax collected from (a) breweries, (b) distilleries operating under Dominion licences in the calendar year ending 31st December, 1921, and in each succeeding calendar year to the 31st of December, 1929?
5.	What are the distinctive names of spirits manufactured in Canadian distilleries?
. 6. Are the labels used on (a) brewery, (b) distillery products bottled in Canada approved by the Department of National Revenue before being used?
7.	Are coipies of such labels kept on file (a) in the Department of National Revenue, (b) by the government officer in charge in the breweries and distilleries in which the bottling is done?
8.	Do such labels show the strength of alcoholic content according to the United States standard?
9.	Is the size of bottles or flasks used for the bottling of (a) brewery, (b) distillery products approved by the Department of National Revenue?
10.	Are snch bottles or flasks of a size to hold reputed quantities of liquid according to the American or imperial standards?
11.	Can intoxicating liquors under any circumstances be legally exported to the United

Questions
States of America without paying the Canadian excise tax? If so, has any intoxicating liquor been so exported and in what quantities?
12.	Can distillery products of any kind he legally exported by water to the United States of America without clearances being granted by government officials?
. 13. Is it legally possible to remove any distillery products from a licensed distillery bonded warehouse without the Government being apprised of the purpose of the removal?
14.	Is the government furnished with particulars of intended export of liquor from licensed breweries and distilleries to the United States ot America ?
15.	What is the official number of the form used in connection with the export of liquo-r from Canada?
16.	Has such form been approved by the government?
17.	Will a copy of such form be produced?
18. Is a copy of such form sent by the government officer at a licensed distillery to the government officer at the point of exit when liquor is exported to the United States of America?
19.	Has such form been recently revised?
20.	Has the Department of National Revenue prescribed the points of exit along the Detroit River frontier to be used for the exportation of brewery and distillery products to the United States of America?
21.	Is a government form provided for use at such points of exit showing names and addresses of consignees of such brewery and distillery products?
22.	If so, will a copy of such form be produced together with a copy of the form of clearance made by the government officer at the point of exit?
23 How many descriptive labels for bottles for holding (a) brewery, (b) distillery products were approved by the Department of National
Revenue in the calendar year 1921 and in each succeeding calendar year to the 31st December, 1929?
24.	How many of such approved brand labels refer to (a) Canadian rye whisky, (b) Scotch type whisky, (c) American rye whisky, (d) Bourbon whisky, (e) gin?
25.	How many approved brand labels for bottles containing (a) brewery, (b) distillery products contain words indicating the alcoholic strength of content in United States proof?
26.	Has the government a record of the grain used, by (a) breweries, (b) distilleries, (e) malting companies, in Canada for the calendar year 1921 and in each succeeding calendar year up to the 31st December, 1929? If so, what were the kinds and quantities of grain so used in each such calendar year by (a) breweries, (b) dis tilleries, (c) malting companies?


James Malcolm: Speaking for the hon.
Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler), he desires me to say that the answer submitted to this question only covers that information which could be obtained from the files of the department. Further information is being obtained by means of correspondence with the distilleries and breweries. The minister desires me to state that as this question was only received on Saturday a hurried preparation of the answer was necessary, and he trusts that if there are any omissions he may be permitted to make corrections.


Mr. BENNETT:: I did not intend to ask for any information other than that in the files of the department.


James Malcolm: I believe the correspondence has gone forward already. The answer is as follows:
1. (a) Breweries
31st March, 1922.. 31st March, 1923. . 31st March, 1924.. 31st March, 1925.. 31st March, 1926. . 31st March, 1927.. 31st March, 1928. . 31st March, 1929. . 1st January, 1930
66
72
84

(b) Distilleries 10 12
16 18 20 23 25 27
2.
1st January, 1922	
1st January, 1923	"	'' j1st January, 1924	
' . .	' ' ''
The above figures are for total balances in warehouse. Figures available.
8,130,907 proof gallon! 8,268,543 proof gallons 7,941,616 proof gallons [DOT]
for distilleries alone not
1st January, 1925	
1st January, 1926	
1st January, 1927	
1st January, 1928	
1st January, 1929	
1st January, 1930	
S. (a) Excise Tax (estimated).
31st March, 1922	
31st March, 1923	
31st March, 1924	
31st March, 1925	
31st March, 1926	
9,823,284 proof gallons 11,098.810 proof gallons 13.277,207 proof gallons 18,432,079 proof gallons 27.615.539 proof gallons 36,593,869 proof gallons
$	404,959
356,779 371,338 468,718
Questions

3. (a) Excise Tax (estimated).
31st March, 1927	
31st March, 1928	
31st March, 1929	
31st December, 1929	
(b)	Sales Tax (estimated).
31st March, 1922	
31st March, 1923	
31st March, 1924	
31st March, 1925	
31st March, 1926	
31st March, 1927	
31st March, 1928	
31st March, 1929	
31st December, 1929	
(c)	Excise Duties (estimated).
31st March, 1922	
31st March, 1923	
31st March, 1924	
31st March, 1925	
31st March, 1926	
31st March, 1927	
31st March, 1928	
31st March, 1929	
31st December, 1929	
528,000
474,943
511,593
150,048
$	40,420
222,593 421,995 592,473 917,411 1,238.664 1,164,448 874,137 334,812
$	206,906
361,326 2.435,702 4.064,975 7,573.670 9,559,052 10,622,086 10.604,069 7,208,293
Import Duties (estimated).
31st March, 1922	
31st March, 1923	
31st March, 1924	
31st March, 1925	
31st March, 1926	
31st March, 1927	
31st March, 1928	
31st December,
(a) Breweries 31st December, 31st December, 31st December,
31st December,
191,011
812,624
284,190
117,468
214,752
1.337.338
2,842.367
3,051,814
1929				 1,592,932
		(b) Distilleries
1921	$483,575 60	$309,596 741922	530.420 66	196,652 451923	489,202 05	432,193 401924	533,886 43	457,155 831925	344,893 73	297,572 201926	430.099 91	406,636 791927	570,896 71	760,704 431928	723,449 97	714,915 48
The information with regard to the year 1929 being due to be filed until the 30th April, 1930.
is not available, returns for that year not
5.	No record. All returns are for spirits.
6.	(a) Yes.
(b)	Yes.
7.	(a) Yes.
(b) Yes.
8.	Malt liquors-No.
Spirits-In some cases, yes.
9.	(a) No.
(b) No.
10.	Under provisions of Food & Drugs Act contents of packages is stated on label in imperial
fluid ounces.	_
11.	Yes. Liquor for non-beverage purposes and wine for sacramental purposes.
No statistics available.
12.	No.
13.	No.
14.	Yes.
15.	B 13.
16.	Yes.
17.	Yes.	.
18.	No, but forms T 204 and T 204A are used to point of exit.
19.	No, but supplements have been issued.
20.	Brewery and distillery products can be exported from any port or outport of customs but within the limits of the port or outport, the number of docks at which these products may be loaded and cleared have been limited.
21.	Yes.
22.	Yes.
[Mr. Malcolm.!

Questions
23.	(a) Brewery (b) Distillery
31st	Dec.,	1921 .. ..	nil	531st	Dec.,	1922 ....	7	1531st	Dec.,	1923 .. ..	18	1131st	Dec.,	1924 .. ..	30	2431st	Dec.,	1925 .. ..	25	931st	Dec.,	1926 .. ..	14	2731st	Dec.,	1927 ....	84	5231st	Dec.,	1928 .. ..	44	6231st	Dec.,	1929 .. ..	85	8824.	(a) 116(b)	8(c)	16(d)	98(e)	5325.	(a) None (b) 126(b)	Distilleries	lbs.	lbs.Malt	Corn31st	Mar.	1921..	.. 1,671,298	18,111,70031st	Mar.	1922..	.. 4,084,925	33,210,84231st	Mar.	1923..	.. 4,222,031	12,596,83331st	Mar.	1924..	.. 4,847,035	25,969,85031st	Mar.	1925. .	.. 8,549,177	48,524,43831st	Mar.	1926..	.. 6,109,455	37,496,95531st	Mar.	1927.	.. 12,650,807	62,478,90631st	Mar.	1928..	.. 25,116,100	78,871,58431st	Mar.	1929..	.. 39,170,372	106,112,31631st	Dec.	1929..	.. 29,052,865	90,742,006
26. (a) Yes.
(b)	Yes
(c)	Yes
(A) Breweries			
		lbs.	lbs.
		Malt	Rice
31et Mar.	1921.. ..	73,984,115	605,45531st Mar.	1922.. ..	82,787,785	511,37531st Mar.	1923.. ..	81,818,496	465,34631st Mar.	1924.. ..	101,723,923	602,01231st Mar.	1925.. ..	112,222,691	808,23631st Mar.	1926.. ..	120,702,783	443,61931st Mar.	1927.. ..	119,823,979	741,51031st Mar.	1928.. ..	136,127,160	939,25331st Mar.	1929.. ..	149,247,347	1,619,82231st Dec.	1929.. ..	116,149,778	1,251,955lbs.	lbs.	lbs.	lbs.Rye	Oats	Wheat	Rice4,254,150	133,980	69,740	9,168,125	185,260	220,755	9,936,928	88.310	11,866,009	138,044	1,104,540	18.730,531	205,412	222,160	12,506,822	380,385	46,800	21,129,081	283,950	1,616,020	53,617,695	139,184	249,660	80,449,536	228,102	84,52349,853,744	259,510	54,750(c)	Malting Companies	lbs.
Grain used
31st	Mar.	1921	
140,355,99731st	Mar.	1922	
97,685,01131st	Mar.	1923	
102,179,52731st	Mar.	1924	
128,794,21631st	Mar.	1925	
161,483,70931st	Mar.	1926	
141,918,260(c) Malting Companies	lbs.
Grain used
31st Mar.	1927	
141,770,68031st Mar.	1928	
174,839,76131st Mar.	1929	
216,582,55131st Dec.	1929	
183,347,570No record	of different kinds of grain kept in
case of licensed malsters.

Questions

Form B. 13-(Amended 1928.) 1.000,000-8-29
Customs, Canada
Export Entry
Report No..
Entry No..
(Place of lading)
Entry and list of articles of domestic production and foreign articles, which are not subject to export
customs, or excise duties, delivered by	
(Address of owner or agent)
to	for exportation to	
(Name of railway or vessel, &c.)	(Country of final or ultimate destination)
vla....*;****	consigned as below:
(State if shipped via United States port or direct from Canadian port)
N.B.-Goods must be described accurately as "Canadian" or "Foreign," and correct details must be given of quantities, values and ultimate destination of exports.
Address of consignee and marks on packages	Number of packages	Articles Describe the articles fully as, canned pork, printed cotton cloth, printing presses, apples, oats, wheat, &c. General terms such as meats, dry goods, machinery, prints, &c., will not be accepted	Quantity State number of pounds, tons, gallons, yards, &c.	Value at time and place of shipment	
				Domestic products, including imported goods re-manufactured in Canada	Foreign or imported products in same condition as imported
					
					
					
					
					
Stamp of port of exit
Officer oi Customs and Excise
I,_
(owner, shipper or consignor), hereby certify that the above is a full and true statement of the kinds, quantities, values and destination of all the articles delivered by me for exportation as aforesaid.
Signed by	j..
Residence	
Date	
"[DOT]See regulations on the other side (Instructions on back of export entry form are as follows): Instructions
Department of National Revenue, Canada
_	(Customs Division)
lo Collectors of National Revenue,
Agents of Railway and Steamship Lines and Others Concerned:-
Customs Export Extries
The special attention of Railway Companies and other carriers of goods is directed to the following provisions of the regulations as to Export Entries, in force 1st July, 1900, particularly as to an Export Entry (on Form B. 13) in duplicate accompanying the way-bill of all goods laden at an inland port or place when consigned as for exportation from Canada.
Regulations respecting Customs Entries and statistical returns of goods exported from Canada, in force
and effect on and after 1st July, 1900
1.	Export entries in duplicate for statistical purposes shall be delivered to the Collector of National Revenue at the last port in Canada through which goods for exportation pass outwards for places beyond the limits of Canada when exported by land, and at the port where laden on the exporting ship if the goods be exported by water, each such port being herein designated as "the port of exit from Canada."

Questions
Summary of Customs Regulations respecting Export Entries of goods required to be observed by Shippers and Railway Carriers in Canada, when goods are laden at inland railway stations and sidings and consigned for exportation from Canada.
Note particularly that an Export Entry (on Form B. 13), in duplicate, in required for Customs Statistical purposes to be forwarded along with the way-bill from the place of lading, in all cases when goods are laden at an inland port or place in Canada and consigned as for exportation from Canada.
2.	The Export Entry may be signed by the shipper or his agent (who may also be the railway agent) in the presence of a witness, and is not required to be attested to.
3.	Goods for exportation are classed in the Export Entry Form as "Domestic Articles" or "Foreign Articles," Goods exported from a Customs Bonded Warehouse are to be reported on the same form (B. 13) but under the heading "Foreign Articles".
Goods exported from an Excise Warehouse are to be reported also on the same form (B. 13) but under the heading "Domestic Articles."	_
Export Entries from Customs or Excise Bonded Warehouse as aforesaid are to be marked at the top as "Ex-Warehouse for Statistics."
4.	Export Entries are required for coin or bullion exported, as in the case of other exports.
5.	Remember that the Export Entries in duplicate for statistical purposes as above stated and as ordered by the Governor in .Council are to be delivered by the carrier of the goods to the Collector of National Revenue at the port of exit from Canada (being the last port in Canada through which the goods for exportation pass outwards for places beyond the limits of Canada when exported by land); and that it is most important to have the Export Entries furnished and firmly attached to the way-bill from inland places in order to avoid the necessity for detention and side-tracking of the goods at the frontier until Export Entries therefore are obtained and delivered to the Canadian Customs-Excise Officer.
6.	When goods for exportation arrive at the frontier unaccompanied by Export Entries from inland stations, the Collector of National Revenue is to report the facts to the Commissioner of Customs and state particularly the place of lading, in order that the neglect to forward Export Entries may be traced to the proper railway agent, and that the manager of the railway may be notified through the Department of National Revenue of such irregularity and neglect.	_
7.	The country of ultimate destination to which the goods are destined for a market is to be stated in the Export Entry as the country to which exported, and this rule is to be strictly observed and particularly as to exports of the forest, and of animals and of dairy and other agricultural produce shipped via the United States, as articles may be carelessly declared by shippers as for exportation to the United States when in fact the ultimate destination of the shipment is to Great Britain or some other country beyond the United States, the transit through United States being merely an incident in the course of the exportation to the ultimate market beyond.
Note Particularly-
That a separate Export Entry in duplicate should be delivered for each shipment, showing the name of the shipper and consignee respectively in each case.
A "general" entry is not acceptable in which the shipments of several shippers to the same consignee are "bulked" together without specifying the particulars of each shipment and the name of the shipper in each instance.	#
Note also, when drawback of Customs duty is claimed, that a third copy of Export Entry, marked "subject to drawback", should accompany the goods to the frontier port of exit.
Penalty for neglect to deliver Export Entry, $400.00.
R. W. Breadner,
Commissioner of Customs.
Note A.-Customs-Excise Officers are instructed to specially direct the attention of shippers or their agents in the execution of Export Entries (Form B. 13) that a separate Export Entry (Form B. 13) executed in duplicate is required to be made for each shipment less than a carload lot, also that Export Entries in duplicate are required to be executed for each car used in comprising a total consignment or shipment. Also that great care is required to be exercised by the shipper or his agent in giving the correct quantities and values on such Export Entries.
Department of Customs and Excise, Canada
File 126525.	Ottawa, 13th March, 1926.
To Collectors of Customs and Excise
at Frontier Ports and Outports in Ontario.
Subject: Exportation of Beer and other Intoxicating Liquors (Spirits).
(Supplementary to Circular Letter, same subject, dated 13th February, 1926).
Heretofore, bulk shipments from interior points of lading accompanied by a single export entry have been accepted at frontier ports of exit although the goods covered thereby are actually exported in part shipments, the original export entry being accounted for when the entire shipment has gone forward.
You are instructed that this is no longer to be permitted and that hereafter separate export entries are to be furnished at interior point of lading for each quantity to be carried forward from the port of exit in a single shipment, these to be attached to the waybill.
Notify all exporters or their agents promptly of this requirement.
While the general instructions of the department admit of the acceptance of export entries signed by the shipper and not verified by oath, it is required under the provisions of the act (see section 99) that the export entry be verified by oath of the actual owner of the goods or of his duly authorized agent, and this requirement is to be observed in respect of beer and other spirituous liquors and wines.
2419-27^
Questions

The party making the oath will be described as owner, shipper or consignor, as may be, striking out the two words not applicable and leaving the one word that is applicable.
The form of certificate on export entry B. 13 may be changed to read as follows,-"I	
owner, shipper or consignor (as the case may be), hereby make oath and say that the above is a full and true statement", &c., and this affidavit will require to be sworn before the collector or some official authorized to take oaths.
(Signed) R. R. Farrow,
Deputy Minister.
General Number	 Serial Number	
Beer Permit


T. 204 A
[Stage Direction]
Permit for removal via(')	
fromp)	top)	
of-	{Basel's8} of beer oonta!ning	v	
Imperial gallons being the property ofp)
ofp)	and about to be delivered into the possession
ofp)	of	
for exportation out of Canada.
This Permit is valid forp)	days from date and no longer.
At the expiration of this period it is to be endorsed on the face thereof by the duly authorized Officer of the Provincial Government and delivered by said Provincial Officer to the Collector of National Revenue for
the Port ofp)	and	cancelled.1	2	3	4	5Serial Number and Marks on Cartons, Barrels, or Kegs, also description of contents	Total Number of Packages	Gallons contained in each Package	Total Number of Gallons	Mode of conveyance during Removal
Permit granted at.
this	day of	19... Collector of National Revenue(1)	See reverse side.	(over)
(Other side of permit to export beer):
	National Revenue T.204 A Excise	
Granted to.	Permit to export Beer	
	.day of			19	
By		
Collector of National Revenue
Explanation respecting blank spaces herein
P)The mode of conveyance as via Canadian National Railway or John Doe, Provincial Bonded Carter, as the case may be.
p)As Maitland, Ontario.
p)Port of Exit to which beer is to be removed, as Windsor.
P)Name of Brewer.
(5)Location of Brewery.
p)The name of person by whom beer is to be cleared for export.
P)The number of days which in the opinion of the officer issuing the permit is necessary for removal.
P)Port of Exit, as "Windsor".
[Stage Direction]
Questions
Excise act.
Permit. T. 204
General number	 Local number	
Permit the removal inC1)	
from(2)	to(3)	
of the undermentioned spirits, equal to(4)	gallons of the strength
of proof being the property of(5)	;.
of (6)		and about to be transferred into the possession
of wzzzzzzzzz z	ow	
the duty having been(9)	[DOT][DOT][DOT]
This permit is valid for(10)	days from date and no longer, and
on or before the expiration of the said(u)	days it is to be delivered
into the hands of the collector or sub-collector of customs and excise for the port of(12)	
and cancelled
1	2	3	4	5Number and marks of barrels, casks, kegs, or puncheons	Numbers and gallons in each package	Strength	Number of gallons of the strength of proof	Name of Person or corporation in whose custody the spirits will be during removalNo..	Gallons.	No..	Gallons.	No..	Gallons.	No..	Gallons.	
Permit granted at.
This	day of	19	 Collector of Customs and Excise
0) See reverse side
(Other side of permit to remove spirits): Customs and Excise
(Over)
(Explanation) of the manner of filling up the blanks in the within form
[Stage Direction]
(Excise)
Permit
To remove spirits
Granted to.
this	day of.
19.
By.
Collector C. and E.
Entered folio.
Local No.
(1)	The mode of conveyance as "the cars of the Canadian National Railway" the "Steamer St. Helen" or as case may be.
(2)	The warehouse or other place, it's locality, etc. as "the warehouse attached to the Distillery of J. P. at "Prescott" or "Bonding Warehouse B. at Maitland", etc.
(3)	The place to which the spirits are to be removed as "Montreal".
(4)	The total gallons of the strength of proof for which the permit is granted.
(5)	The owner's name and occupation in full.
(6)	His place of business.
(7)	The name and occupation in full of the person into whose possession it is to be transferred.
(8)	His place of business.
(9)	"Paid" or "secured in Bond" as the case may be
(10)	The number of days which in the opinion of the
officer granting the permit may be ncecessary for the removal.
(11)	The period named for the removal.
(12)	Port into which the Spirits are removed or in
which the removal from one place to another takes place.
Questions

[Stage Direction]
General Number	Local Number
No	 Special Permit		
Supplementary to T-204 and T-204-A
Permit the transfer of the undermentioned	
(Beer or spirits)
the product of	
(Insert here, name and address of Canadian manufacturer)
Prom	By	
(Name of port or outport)	(Means of conveyance)
To	:	
(Name of dock to which to be carried for export)
This permit is to accompany the goods and be delivered to the officer at the dock last mentioned. When export entry is made the officer will endorse permit as "Cancelled" over his signature with the date, and transmit same to the Collector at the port of exit.
This permit is not valid except as covering the transfer of the goods precisely as described by the undermentioned marks and numbers.
A duplicate copy of this permit is to be at once delivered to the nearest provincial police official.
Permit granted at	
(State name of port or outport)
By.
(Signature of officer)
This.
day of.
19.
IMr. Malcolm.]

Questions as Orders jor Returns


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What sums have been contributed yearly by the government to the grade separation fund since the fund's inception to date?
2.	Have the moneys spent on major grade separations or terminals in Montreal, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Quebec, Toronto, and Hamilton, come out of this fund? If not, how are the funds provided and by whom?
3.	Will any legislation be introduced this session to bring this act up to date and supply the fund with an adequate amount to have the act function properly, on orders sanctioned and not gone on with?
4.	Does the grade separation fund provide funds for the commitments of the Canadian National railw-ays on grade separation work on its American lines and subsidiaries?
5.	What sums have been or are being spent on grade separation or new terminals by the Canadian National railways, (a) at Detroit; (b) at Port Huron; (c) on the Central Vermont; (d) on the Canadian National railways, Montreal-Portland division, situated in the United States?


RURAL MAIL ROUTES
Mr. STINSON:: 1.	Were any new rural mail routes established in the year 1929?
2.	If so, what are the locations and the number of boxes on each of the routes so established?
3.	What applications for new- rural mail routes, if any. were refused in 1929, and where refused, give location and cause for refusal?
4.	Were extensions to existing rural mail routes made in the year 1929?
5.	If so, on what routes and what number of mail boxes were added to each route?
6.	What extensions, if any, to existing rural mail routes were refused or held up in the year 1929?
7.	Where extensions have been held up or refused, w-hat is the location of each and cause for refusal to grant such extension or extensions ?


FEDERAL DISTRICT COMMISSION-HON. THOMAS AHEARN
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	When w-as Hon. Thomas Ahearn appointed chairman of the federal district commission?
2.	At the time of his appointment, where were the offices of the commission?
3.	What rent w-as being paid per annum?
4.	When were the commission's offices moved to the Electric building?
5.	What rent is the commission paying for its offices in the Electric building?
6.	Who owns the Electric building?
7.	If a corporation, is Hon. Thomas Ahearn the president of the corporation?
8.	What was the cost of furnishing the board room of the commission?
9.	Since the death of the late Harold Fisher, K.C., who has been acting solicitor for the federal district commission?
10.	What relation, if any, is he of Hon. Thomas Ahearn?
11.	Has the commission rented any properties in Ottawa other than those for its offices?
12.	If so, from w-hom?
13.	What is the annual rental?
14.	If the lessor is a corporation, is Hon. Thomas Ahearn president or director?
15.	W'hat purchases has the commission made from Ottawa Car Manufacturing Company, Limited. during 1928 and during 1929?
1C. Is Hon. Thomas Ahearn president of the Ottawa Car Manufacturing Company, Limited?
17.	What amounts were paid by the commission to the Ottawa Electric Light Company during each of the years 1926, 1927, 1928 and 1929?
18.	Is Hon. Thomas Ahearn the president of the Ottaw-a Electric Light Company?
19.	From w-hom did the commission purchase the electric light standards installed in the park stretching from Sparks street to Laurier avenue west, beside the Rideau canal, and what was paid for each standard?
20.	What was the gross amount so paid?
21.	What was the cost of each of the electric light standards on the driveway between Laurier avenue and St. Louis dam?
22.	Has the commission given an exclusive right to the Ottawa Electric Railway Company to operate sight-seeing busses on the commission's driveways?
23.	If so, w-hen was this done?
24.	Is Hon. Thomas Ahearn the president of the Ottawa Street Railway Company?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Thomas Cantley: For a copy of all tenders, advertisements, notices of acceptance or rejection cd tenders and memorandum relating to such tenders, for the supply of coal, at Halifax. Sydney or North Sydney, Nova Scotia, to the Department of National Defence. Department of Railways, and (or) any other department of the government, relating in any way to the supplying of coal for use ashore or afloat, during the calendar years 1928-1929.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, letters, telegrams, memoranda, documents and communications relating to or in any way concerning the expedition of one L. A. Giroux, Liberal member of the legislative assembly of Alberta, to Yukon territory and Northwest Territories in 1929, at public expense, showing inter alia:
(1)	the application of said Giroux to be sent on said expedition;
(2)	the acceptance of said application by a minister, deputy minister or other officer of the crow-n:
(3)	directions or authority to said Giroux to proceed, and defining or referring to the purpose or object of said trip and his duties and activities while so employed;
(4)	the capacity in which said Giroux was so employed by the government;
(5)	the route followed by said Giroux and the various means of transportation resorted to by him on said journey;
(6)	the time occupied on said journey from and returning to Edmonton;

Unopposed Motions jor Papers
(7)	the period of time spent at each place throughout said trip, and why;
(S) duties performed and business transacted by said Giroux at each such place stopped at;
(9)	the expense of the expedition upon which said Giroux proceeded, showing travelling expenses, reiiiuneration, hire of airplanes and all details;
(10)	all communications, statements, reports to or filed with the government or any minister or department of government by or on behalf of said Giroux pursuant to or in any way relating to or concerning said expedition.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. MANION;
For a copy of all papers in connection with the tenders which were last called for a ferry service between Pietou, Nova Scotia, and Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.
Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: For a copy of the reports of the Advisory board of Royal Military College for years 1926. 1927, 1928, 1929.


Mr. PETTIT:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports, estimates, tenders, contracts and other documents, in connection with the erection of the new post office building in the city of Niagara Falls, Ontario.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William) moved:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, or other documents received by the Minister of Immigration or the Minister of Labour dealing with the admission of Mennonites as immigrants to Canada.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Acting Minister of Immigration):: With the proviso that it shall cover just the last two years.


Robert James Manion: That is all I want.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. W. K. ESLING (West Kootenay) moved:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, petitions, memoranda, orders in council, minutes of council and other documents in the possession, or under the control of the government of Canada or any department thereof, of date subsequent to May 12, 1925, relating to the proposed reclamation of the area in the province of British Columbia known as the Kootenay flats.


John Frederick Johnston: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
JMr. Geo. Black.]


Charles A. Stewart: With the reservation that if
there is any correspondence of an international character, we shall first have to receive permission to bring it down.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. D. F. KELLNER (Athabaska) moved:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, and other communications, relating to someone else, other than Cornwall, purported to be H. M. Barton referred to in the final report of Honourable A. H. Clarke, commissioner regarding Athabaska election, October 29, 1925.


Hon. LUCIEN CANNON (Solicitor General) :: On behalf of the Minister of Justice
(Mr. Lapointe), I wish to state that we have no objection to the motion being carried, with the reservation, in accordance with parliamentary practice, that any confidential documents will not be brought down.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Ferdinand Kellner: moved:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents, relating to the prosecution of one Cornwall, purported to be H. M. Barton, referred to in the final report of Honourable A. H. Clarke, commissioner regarding Athabaska election, October 29, 1925.


Lucien Cannon: On behalf of the Minister of Justice
(Mr. Lapointe), I wish to make the same reservation as for the previous motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
PROPOSED FEDERAL GRANT IN Am OF CONSTRUCTION
Donald Ferdinand Kellner: 
Mr. T. E. SIMPSON (West Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution now before the house is practically the same as that introduced by the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Kellner)

National Highways-Mr. Simpson
last session. At that time considerable discussion took place and many arguments were presented favouring the adoption of the resolution, at least in its amended form, but apparently we were not able to convince the government of the advisability of taking the desired action. In the interim the government may have had an opportunity of further considering the arguments that were then advanced, and the representations which, I believe, have been made (by the Canadian Motor League and other public bodies asking for federal assistance to highways. May we hope that as a result of this further consideration the government may be in a more receptive mood this session than they were when the resolution was first introduced, for I can assure them that the question of improved highways and improved roads connecting rural sections with those highways is one of supreme importance to the people of this country to-day.	'
The automobile to-day cannot be considered a luxury, it is a necessity. The professional man, the merchant, the contractor, the agriculturist, all make use of the automobile. If you visit the farmers' market on market day in any of our towns or cities and see the number of automobiles and motor trucks assembled there, you will be convinced of the necessity of the automobile to the agriculturist and the market gardener. Many of these producers have to travel miles to meet the consumers and dispose of their produce to the best advantage, for cash, a privilege which they did not enjoy before the advent of the motor and the improvement of the highways.
The government stated last year-I do not know whether they are of the same opinion this session or not-that this was a provincial matter, and that it was not a good principle for one government to collect taxes and another government to spend them, in fact, it was put in stronger language than that. It was said that it was a vicious principle. But I contend that the question of interprovincial highways, or a trans-Canada or national highway, is one that should be considered and that the project should be assisted by the federal government of this country. If the federal government relieves the provincial legislatures of the expenditures in that connection they will then be enabled more promptly to take care of the roads in the rural sections, and put them in such a condition that the agriculturists will be able to get their produce to the market. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that one of the most important things the government of this country can undertake to-day is

the completion of the trans-Canada highway. This government receives millions of dollars each year in customs duties, and in excise or luxury taxes on automobiles. Why should it not spend some of that money in the improving of the highways that are used by those automobiles? The tourist trade is surely one of national importance, and it has been increasing rapidly in recent years, at the same time becoming a very important source of revenue for the Dominion government. I cannot do better than quote from the annual address of Mr. Neill, the vice-president and managing director of the Royal Bank of Canada to the shareholders of that bank:
There is a tendency for the industries of a new country to rest upon the direct exploita-tion_ of natural resources. It is obvious that mining depletes mineral resources. To a somewhat lesser degree the same is true concerning our present methods of forestry which permit fire and cutting to destroy more than the year's normal growth, and a like statement may be made regarding the type of farming which takes away essential elements from the soil without effort at adequate replacement. It may be considered as evidence ef relative economic maturity that the individual Canadian industry which had the greatest growth in revenue between 1922 and 1929 was not dependent upon the destruction of our natural resources.
During this period, the value of the Canar dian tourist trade has grown at a more rapid rate than the income of any other individual industry in the country. According to the following table, published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, the revenue from this source increased from ninety million dollars in 1922 to two hundred and fifty million dollars in 1928. Three hundred million dollars constitutes a conservative estimate of the total for 1929. On this basis there has been an increase of 233 per cent in this revenue since
He states further:
There is a greater annual migration across the border between Canada and the United States than across any other international boundary. During 1920 there were more than fifteen million people who visited Canada. The number of visitors in the course of the year is 50 per cent in excess of our total population.
We can only hope to increase this trade by improving our national highways, and by making accessible the beauty spots of this country, and I contend, Mr. Speaker, that in no way can that be more readily done than by completing the trans-Canada highway. We have, it is true, many beauty spots from one end of this country to the other, from Nova Scotia to British Columbia, but the portion of the trans-Canada highway that is not yet completed lies largely in northern Ontario, and I venture to say that there is no part of Canada that will be more attractive to the tourist than that undeveloped portion of northern Ontario through which that highway

National Highways-Mr. Carmichael
has not yet been completed. The tourists from the other side of the line who visit Canada naturally are anxious to get back into the primitive parts of the country, close to the natural beauty spots, and when they return home they not only return determined to come back but they tell their friends about it and in that way the tourist trade from the United States is increased year by year.
This portion of the trans-Canada highway is a fairly expensive portion to construct, but that is no reason why its completion should not be undertaken. As my hon. friend (Mr. Kellner) stated, years ago when the first railway was projected across Canada it was a tremendous undertaking, and some very stron-g criticism was offered at that time, but we all realize to-d'ay that had not that railway been constructed across Canada it is very doubtful if we would have a united Canada to-day. It has played a very important part in binding together the different parts of the Dominion. But to-day we are living not only in a railway age but in an age where more and more the people are travelling by automobile, and I think it is fair to assert that nothing to-day will do more to bind Canada together than the completion of the trans-Oanada highway, which would enable the people of the east to take their families in their motor cars and visit western Canada, and the people of the west to visit the east. In that way the people would become more and more familiar with their own country, and with conditions prevailing in different parts of the country. In that connection, Roger W. Babson, in speaking the other day with respect to the tourist business of the United States, had this to say:
An estimate of all expenditures in 1929 by tourists, vacationists, campers, etc., is about $4.000,009,000. Most of this money mas spent in the United States. Only 21 per cent of it, or $860,090,000, was spent in foreign countries. Hence the tourist trade is essentially a domestic industry, and one of great magnitude and importance. Its total value is about 41 per cent of our total national income. Its stimulating effects spread out over scores of other trades and industries. Retail business, gas and oil, sporting goods, wearing apparel, automobiles, garages, hotels, restaurants, amusement places, in fact, all business in the localities affected feel its beneficial influence.
As I stated before, many of our people in days gone by felt that they could not afford to take their families on long trips when the journey had to be made by railway, but today they have automobiles and are enabled to go on vacations of from ten days to two weeks. Where are they forced to go? In many cases, they are forced to cross the line, and they spend their money over there. If we had a trans-Canada highway, why would
not the same principle apply as that applied by Mr. Roger Babson to the United States? Instead of these people crossing the line and spending their money in the United States, they would travel to the west and leave their money in Canada.
I do not intend to argue this point at length. If the government will look upon this question in a reasonable way, if they sense at all public opinion on this matter they will give it more favorable consideration than was given last year. In my opinion, no other question involving the expenditure of a few millions of dollars would be more favourably received by the Canadian people than the expenditure necessary for the completion of the trans-Canada highway.


Mr. A. M. CARMICHAEL (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, this resolution now before the house is one of great importance. During the last session we had a lengthy discussion upon a similar resolution with an amendment, and while it was not carried by the house, it received a very substantial vote of this house. I do not think that vote was representative of the public opinion back of the resolution, but it was very substantial nevertheless.
In listening to the debate upon the resolution as proposed by the hon. member for Atha-baska (Mr. Kellner) I became convinced that he was asking more for a trans-Canada highway than for grants to aid provincial roads. In fact, after he had been speaking for a short time, I made a note, "some arguments for the trans-Canada highway" and later on I changed that to, "a good deal of argument for the trans-Canada highway." The last speaker (Mr. Simpson) has followed along the same line, putting forth the argument that we should have a trans-Canada highway. I, also, propose to take that line of argument, that Canada is in need of a transcontinental motor highway. The time is past due when steps should have been taken to build such a road.
We have in this country over one million motor cars, and during recent years our population has begun largely to move about by that method of transportation. As has been stated, a great many people desire to go from east to west and from west to east, but it is impossible to do so by motor car without the necessity of travelling through another country. That seems to me to be rather an uncalled for situation.
According to the annual report of the Royal Bank of Canada, approximately 15,000,000 visitors come to Canada annually and it is estimated that each visitor leaves about $1, or a total of $60,000,000. Along with the
430	COMMONS
National Highways-Mr. Carmichael
building of a trans-Canada highway we should advertise our country as a mecca for tourist traffic, and thus increase the sale of our Canadian goods.
It is figured that each visitor to France purchases about $750 worth of goods in that country, and the French government, appreciating that tourist trade and the revenue derived therefrom, have appropriated more than $1,* 000,000 for advertising purposes. Mr. Neill, who has been already quoted, stated at the Royal Bank annual meeting that if Canada sold only one-tenth of the amount of goods which France sells to each tourist, it would make a difference of over one billion dollars in our trade balance. I do not think we realize the tremendous possibilities there are in connection with the tourist trade, but the above figures will give some idea.
At the present time the provinces are putting forth considerable effort in the building of trans-provincial roads. It is possible to get across the entire province of British Columbia upon a good motor road, except for ferry transportation of a few miles across a small lake. I am informed that within a couple of years there will be another road across that province, which will be an allmotor highway. In the prairie provinces steps are being taken toward the rapid completion of provincial routes. In my own province of Saskatchewan the Minister of Highways has outlined a program which will bring about within the course of a few years the completion of three trans-provincial all-weather highways. I presume Manitoba is taking similar steps to build highways across that province, while the province of Quebec seems to be well advanced in that regard. I have the report for 1920 of the Department of Highways, in which the minister says:
The trans-Canada highway, whose completion is demanded with so much insistence by the western provinces, has been completed for several years as far as the province of Quebec is concerned.
The 1928 report of the Department of Highways for the province of Nova Scotia, while not dealing specifically with the trans-Canada highway, states:
The need for further federal aid for highways in this province is therefore imperative, and should be forthcoming to us in accordance with the spirit of the federal statute of 1919. and in view of the immense revenues collected by the Dominion government from Nova Scotia in federal taxes on the motor vehicle industry.
That quotation gives us some idea of how the different provinces view this project. It was stated last year and repeated this year in debate that there are approximately 600 miles necessary to complete a motor road

from coast to coast. It is possible that in time the individual provinces may have sufficient roadway completed to make a trans-Canada highway, but if left to the individual action of the various provinces it is hardly probable that we will have one continuous highway across Canada. For instance, in my own province we are to have three trans-provincial roads which may or may not connect with the Manitoba trans-provincial road and may or may not connect with the Alberta trans-provincial road. It is easy to see that when each province moves as an individual unit it is going to build a road that will suit its own convenience. It would seem almost imperative that there should be some unifying command that would coordinate the road building policy of the various provinces. Where should we look for that, other than to the federal parliament? There has been and still is a great deal of money spent in connection with roads. Up to the year 1928 we built 381,976 miles of highway in Canada; during the year 1928 there was spent on construction alone $38,912,000; and on maintenance of those highways in the same year the sum of $18,963,000 was spent, making a total of almost $58,000,000 for road construction and maintenance.
This money must be raised by direct or indirect taxation. The provinces have two ways of raising money that might be applied more particularly to road construction:	They collect from the registration of motor cars and from the sale of gasoline. In the year 1928 the sum of $191004,276 was collected by all the provinces for the registration of motor cars; in the same year $12,547,073 was collected for gasoline tax, making a total of $31,551,349.
I am giving these figures accurately because I wish to compare them with the figures that may be applicable to the federal government for expenditure on road improvement. This money a matter of $31,500,000, is collected provincially and as noted in previous figures almost $58,000,000 is spent on road improvement. Our Dominion government has a source of revenue from import duties on motor vehicles and parts, and during the year 1928 that government collected $24,961,099 from this source; in the same year it collected $2,977,375 through excise taxes on motor vehicles and parts, a total of $27,938,474.
Those are some figures which should appear to be rather convincing. Our nine provinces, combined, collected about $31,500,000 in revenue from the licences of motor cars and the tax on gasoline sales. Our Dominion government collects almost $28,000,000 from duties on motor vehicles and excise taxes on motor cars imported into Canada. Surely,

National Highways-Mr. Carmichael
Mr. Speaker, it is not unreasonable on the part of this House to ask that in view of the large revenue directly attributable to the motor car industry the Dominion government should not only give serious and favourable consideration to the resolution proposing aid to the various provinces, but should take action to see that there is a trans-Canada highway speedily completed across Canada.
I have here a resolution proposed by the Alberta Motor Association. I think it is representative of the majority of motorists in Canada, and represents the sentiment of the associations throughout the various provinces, if such associations exist. I would like to put this on record, as it has not been read into Hansard up to this stage. It reads as follows:
Whereas the members of the Alberta Motor Association believe that the association represents the opinion of the motorist in the province of Alberta;	_ _
And whereas increased facilities of transportation connecting all the provinces of Canada will tend to unify growth and bring about a better understanding between the parts thereof and induce a greater number of American tourists to visit Canada and thereby bring a great contribution of additional revenue to the public treasury, and will enable the Canadian motorist to obtain greater use of his investment in the automobile and will in many other ways contribute to the prosperity of Canada and the building of the nation;
And whereas in the opinion of this association a trans-Canada highway connecting all the provinces and extending from the Pacific to the Atlantic should be built at the expense of the Dominion government;
Therefore be it resolved that this association petition the government of Canada to commence as speedily as possible and carry to a rapid completion a trans-Canada highway.
In 1927 we had what was called a Dominion-provincial conference and I have here a precis of the discussions which took place at that time. I should like to place on record the opinions of the representatives gathered together at that conference. There were eighteen Dominion representatives, twenty-eight representatives from the nine provinces and nineteen other officials and advisers,, making a total gathering of sixty-five. Here is the statement of conclusions arrived at at that conference in regard to the subject of highway construction:
On the question of aid for highway construction practically aill the provinces, with the exception of Quebec, favoured (assistance from the federal treasury. It was pointed out that for some years such assistance had been given, but it had been discontinued. In the meantime with the increase in motor traffic the highway had become more and more a national undertaking, benefitting the Dominion as well as the provinces, and creating a new system of trade and commerce. The construction of these highways was a heavy burden upon some of the
provinces particularly, though the creation of those highways was saving much money to the treasury of the Dominion by reason of their taking the place of branch railway lines. It was estimated that $150,000,000 per year was being spent by tourists in Canada passing over the highways and that much of this money went into the federal treasury.
That represents the opinion expressed at the Dominion-provincial conference.


Mr. DUNNING:: Not all of it.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Not all of the
opinion? I note the province of Saskatchewan from which the Minister of Finance comes is represented in that expression of opinion; at least, so far as I have read, there is nothing to the countrary. It seems to me that federal action in this matter is long overdue. I thought, when I first came to Ottawa nearly nine years ago, we should be very careful of our expenditures, and I stilll think so. But I believe now perhaps I was over-careful when I see the money that can be found for less important expenditures than the one now before the house, and when I think of the large sums, the millions of dollars, that have been and are being spent on beautifying the capital city, without any hon. member raising objection to such expenditures. We have built a large hotel on a park and utilized the space there and we have torn down another large hotel to make a park where that hotel stood. We are building very fine roadways, magnificent bridges and improving the Rideau canal. We are doing pretty well for the city of Ottawa, but there are a number of taxpayers in the Dominion of Canada who would like to get some of the money that is being expended. Very few of the 10,000,000 people of this country will enjoy the benefits of the money we are expending in the capital city; but if we spent a portion of our money on a trans-Canada highway we would extend the privilege to many more citizens to enjoy such expenditures. If we have, as is stated, more than 1,000,000 motor -cars in Canada, that will represent perhaps one-half of our entire population. In other words, almost one-half of our population moves around in motor cars. If we had a trans-Canada highway, a large part of our population would be able to take advantage of it.
I would like to see some of this money running into several millions, I think, which is being expended in encouraging immigrants to come to Canada, spent on improving conditions and facilities in our own country. I believe the Acting Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart) mentioned recently that there is to be no more assisted immigration into

National Highways-Mr. Carmichael
Canada. That was an encouraging statement. I hope the government is back of it That means there will be probably $3,000,000 that can be diverted from that expenditure to something more useful. What more useful expenditure could we engage in than that of building a trans-Canada highway?


Charles Avery Dunning: Is my hon. friend sure of his figures?


Archibald M. Carmichael: I am not sure of what was spent last year, but a couple of years ago the total expenditure for immigration was $3,000,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend a minute ago said "assisted immigration". He said that we were going to drop $3,000,000 in connection with assisted immigration.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Three million dollars was spent in encouraging immigrants to come to Canada.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is very far wrong in that statement.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I am not speaking of assisted immigration from the British Isles; I am speaking of the total amount spent for immigration purposes which runs into around $3,000,000. Possibly it was more than that last year. An hon. member suggests that it is $3,500,000, so I am a little low instead of being a little too high. If we are to curtail our expenditures for immigration purposes, we might enlarge our expenditures for improving conditions at home. If we get our own people thoroughly satisfied and contented, and the conditions under which they labour congenial, we shall not have much trouble keeping them in Canada. I know from my district in recent years, many people have motored from Saskatchewan to Ontario. I am sure they would prefer motoring across Canada, but they were compelled to go through the United States.
I would like to commend the resolution to the serious consideration of the government.
I am not so much concerned about giving the donation to the provinces to spend haphazardly, but I would like to see a coordinating policy adopted by the Dominion government so that our transprovincial roads might be so dovetailed together and so continuous in construction that eventually we might have a trans-Canada highway from coast to coast.


Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):: Mr. Speaker, since this matter was before the house last year, there has been an almost universal expression of opinion from the

various parts of the Dominion in favour of building a highway from coast to coast and in support of the proposition that such a highway is a necessity. The Prime Minister last year, in answering the speakers in the debate along the same lines as the one now proceeding, said that he was opposed to the motion in that it brought forward an entirely vicious principle, that is, the principle of giving grants to the provinces outside of the subsidies to them. I might point out to the right hon. gentleman and to the house, that for many years or at least since the inception of the Dominion, federal grants have been made for railway purposes. The charters for those roads were granted by the Dominion government in each and every case where the railway crossed an intenprovincial boundary or an international boundary, and in many cases where they did not cross such 'boundary. Under conditions as they first existed, a grant generally of $6,400 per mile was made for such railways and no objection was taken. It was a continuous practice in Canada in those days for the development of the railways. To-day, in a great degree, our highways are taking the place of our railways. Our freights are being carried for short distances, and in some cases, for considerable distances, over provincial and other highways of the Dominion. In fact, even our railway companies-and the Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar) will corroborate me in this-are to-day using provincial highways especially in the province of Ontario for the carrying of passengers and express for the benefit of the railways. I would also point out that the government has made at all times and does to-day make grants for interprovincial 'bridges, not for international bridges, but for bridges to connect highways between the various provinces.
The Dominion government is also making grants, and we shall vote them again this year as usual, for telegraph lines which are entirely within one province, in practically each case. I think there is in Canada only one interprovincial telegraph line maintained by the government, but in the great majority of cases the telegraph lines maintained and supported by the government for years past, have been and are entirely provincial in character.
The government is also supporting a system of dams along the streams for the benefit of the lumbering industry. They are entirely provincial, having absolutely no connection in any possible way with any other province or provinces. The government has also given assistance during the last year or two, to a

National Highways-Mr. Arthurs
provincial highway. This was after the amount granted in 1919 for highways had been expended. This was to assist the building of a highway in British Columbia. I am not saying the government is wrong, but I am pointing out to the minister that in each of these cases they have been doing exactly or approximately the act which would be committed if they gave assistance to the construction of a federal highway.


Charles A. Stewart: What particular highway is that?


James Arthurs: A highway from Banff
to the coast. I do not remember the name of it.


Charles A. Stewart: We are
giving no grant to the provincial government there.


James Arthurs: But the government is
building it.


Charles A. Stewart: It is going
through the park.


James Arthurs: But the minister intends
to deal with it outside the park


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


James Arthurs: That is exactly what I
am saying:	the government is building or
helping to build a road outside government land.


Charles A. Stewart: For the very good reason that we cannot go through the park, and we are willing to contribute our share.


James Arthurs: The minister is probably
right. I am not saying that he is wrong in any one of these cases. I am not maintaining that the government is wrong in keeping up telegraph lines for the Yukon or elsewhere. I am simply pointing out what the minister has just admitted, that these grants are absolutely necessary, and I contend that a grant for a federal highway is equally necessary.


Charles A. Stewart: We are
simply doing our share in our own territory.


James Arthurs: Not through your own
territory.


Charles A. Stewart: I will deal
with that.


James Arthurs: All right. A federal grant was made in the year 1919 for highways throughout the Dominion, and I would point out again this year, as I did last, that that grant was practically the first direct move towards good highways in the Dominion
of Canada; so much so, in fact, that in some cases the provinces were very unwilling to accept the grant even after it had been made. I can safely say that a couple of years elapsed before most of the provinces accepted that grant which had been voted by parliament, but to-day every one of the provinces, although slow to enter the scheme, sees the benefit of it and each and every one of the provinces is anxious that this government should continue the assistance which was then given.
One of the previous speakers has mentioned the amount of money that was spent on highways in 1928. I have in my room figures of the expenditure for 1929; I am sorry they are not here, but I would point out to the government that the expenditures by the provinces for this purpose have been very large and are increasing year by year, the lead being given by the province of Ontario, I will take the figure given for 1928 by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael). He gave the figure as approximately $58,000,000. The revenue received by the provinces directly from the roads-I might point out that the revenue to the provinces is derived almost entirely from direct taxation for road purposes, such as the licensing of automobiles, and the gasoline tax-amounted to $31,000,000. In other words, the various provinces in Canada during that year, 1928, paid out $27,000,000 more than they received.


Charles A. Stewart: What proportion of that $58,000,000 was borrowed capital?


James Arthurs: I am not talking about
that at all. It does not make any difference whether the provinces borrowed it or not; they have to pay it; it is no responsibility of this government at all. During the same period the revenue of this Dominion from the sales and luxury tax on automobiles was given by the hon. member for Kindersley as $28,000,000, with nothing spent on highways.
Let us take the example of the United States. That country is faced in many ways with the same difficulties that confront this Dominion. There are certain matters which are controlled entirely by the federal government of the United States, and certain others which are controlled entirely by the various states of the union, and certain other matters which are controlled in part federally, and in part by the state governments. The principle has been accepted in the United States that one of the matters over which there may be joint control and joint contributions is good roads. The United States a few years ago passed a vote of $75,000,000 a


[Stage Direction]
National Highways-Mr. Arthurs
year for ten years for the establishment of highways in the United States; I am speaking of the federal government at Washington. This vote had nothing to do with the grants made by the various states. The Senate has passed an appropriation of $125,000,000 a year for three years, without regard to but in,elusive of the grants previously made. I think that appropriation has been voted by congress. In other words, the people of the United States are granting for road purposes federally, just as we are appealing to this government to grant federally, the sum of one dollar per head. If we take their population ait the very highest possible figure, 120,000,000, the United States are this year spending $125,000,000, or more than one dollar per head for assisting in the building of good roads in the United States. What is the present situation in the United States? To my knowledge, they have at least six highways stretching from ocean to ocean. They have over 200 highways, I think, but I will be conservative and say approximately 200 highways, of a national character outside of these six transcontinental highways. In Canada we have no such highway, and I contend that it is practically impossible for the various provinces of Canada, particularly the province of Ontario, which stretches such a tong distance from east to west, and a great deal of which comprises territory that is uninhabited and can only, foe used for mining and tourist purposes, to undertake a project of this kind, and federal assistance should be given in some way commensurate with the assistance given in the United States. If for instance the people of Canada should vote $9,000,000 a year for three years, we would not be spending one cent more than the people of the United States are spending federally per head for roads, and they already have 200 or more highways which are practically of the same character as our best Ontario provincial highways, and our Ontario highways are the standard in Canada. In addition, the United States have also six transcontinental highways, and I therefore think that we should be prepared to contribute as much per head as the people of the United States, and possibly twice as much if the necessity arises.
A good deal has been said here to-day regarding the benefits to be derived from such assistance for highways. I am pointing out that this assistance would benefit everybody. The first and probably one of the largest benefits would accrue to the federal government, because such a highway would bring into Canada a large number of tourists, and we would be able to exploit what is practically rMr. Arthurs.]
unknown territory so far as tourists are con-cemed. These tourists carry out of Canada a large quantity of goods manufactured in this country and we would benefit in that way. The provinces would also benefit. They would benefit by the tax upon gasoline and other taxes along that line; individuals would benefit, as pointed out by the member for West Algoma (Mr. Simpson). In short, everybody is concerned in this matter, and I think the government would be wise to accede to the request of ninety per cent of the people of Canada, and this year devote a substantial grant in assisting to establish a highway of this nature.
Hon, R. J. MANIO'N (Fort William): Mr. Speaker, for the last few minutes I have been hurriedly looking over the debate which took place last session on a similar resolution moved by the same hon. member from Athabaska (Mr. Kellner); and by the way, I think he deserves our applause for bringing this subject once more before the house and the country, for it is a very important subject. In my hurried glance over the debate on this subject last session I find that outside of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the then Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), none of the members on the other side expressed any opinion, with the exception of the member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) and the then member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis). The latter opposed the resolution on constitutional grounds, and the member for Pontiac, while supporting the sentiment of the resolution, said he could not vote for it. The then Minister of Railways took the attitude that while he was very much impressed by the project, and rather believed in it sentimentally, he could not support it for various reasons. I was struck with the fact that this project, which probably is one of the most important before the people of this country to-day in some of its aspects-and I shall deal with a few of them very briefly before I sit down- dioes not receive the support apparently of anybody on the other side of the house. I noticed a moment ago that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) was in his seat, but he has since left the house. He comes from a section of the country where a national highway is felt to be a most desirable proposition because that part of northern Ontario is more or less isolated so far as motor highways are concerned, and I am surprised in view of the attitude of the people in Kenora and Fort Frances and the rest of the district with respect to this matter that the minister does not come out frankly in support of the resolution.

National Highways-Mr. Manion
The member for Athabaska in moving hia resolution stated that the proposed highway would cost in the neighbourhood of forty or fifty million dollars. I should like to remind him that several sections of road which could be used as parts of a national highway are already built. I admit that his figures are correct for the whole highway at a certain cost of construction per mile, but I think he will find that the sections of road already built in various parts of the Dominion could be incorporated in a national highway. I note that there are roads built through the western prairie provinces and through the mountains, and the roads through the national parks are being completed, as the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) said' a moment ago. But while the Prime Minister was at Calgary last autumn he was waited upon by a deputation in support of this very proposition, and the Minister of the Interior, who was with him at the time, is quoted in the Manitoba Free Press of November 19, as follows:
Hon. Charles Stewart, Minister of the Interior pointed out that the gosoline tax was bringing so much money that the provinces were not having the same difficulty in securing funds for road building as some years ago. The road between Kenora and Winnipeg would be opened within the next 18 months and he did not think more than 200 miles would be left for the province of Ontario to construct before the east would be linked -with the west.
I do not quite agree with the figures he gave:	I think there is more of the road to
be built across northern Ontario than he mentioned.
Charles A. Stewart: More than
two hundred miles?


Robert James Manion: I think so. I take it to
be more than three hundred miles. I wish to give figures which I have made up roughly from estimates, as to what mileage really remains to be built. We can go from any part of eastern Canada to Sault Ste. Marie, the constituency of my hon. friend (Mr. Simpson) who made a very able speech favouring this proposition. But from the Soo to the Manitoba boundary there is a large gap-in fact it extends from the Soo to Winnipeg, because I do not think the Manitoba government has yet made contracts to build to the Ontario boundary, though the undertaking has been talked of a good deal. From the Soo to Chapleau I am informed on good authority that there is ninety miles of road already constructed; and from Nipigon to Fort William, a distance of sixty miles, taking it in a straight line, the road has been constructed; west of Fort William to Shebandowan there is another sixty miles of road, and then in the neighbourhood 2419-281
of the Minister of Labour's district, from Dry-den to Kenora, there is still another sixty miles of road. This means 270 miles of that gap has already been constructed. Taking the total distance from the Soo to the Manitoba boundary at six hundred miles, allowing for the curved manner in which, I take it, the road would run, we have a balance of about 330 miles yet to be constructed. This is, of course a rough estimate.
Not long ago I was with a deputation that waited on the provincial government of Ontario regarding unemployment, and the Minister of Lands and Forests stated in writing- it was published but I could not find it among my papers to-day-that the provincial government was quite willing to cooperate with this government in the building of that section of the highway extending across the gap of which we are speaking at the present moment.
There is this to remember regarding the building of national or provincial highways, that the provinces are in perhaps a rather difficult position to undertake alone the building of a straight national highway. Take, for instance, across the northern section of Ontario extending from Sudbury to the Manitoba boundary, in area nearly as large as Germany and France put together, with a population of only 200,000. This sparse population requires branch roads and a large amount of money is being expended in construction of branch colonization or settlers' roads. Therefore the provincial government should not be expected to build the whole of this proposed national highway across that section of northern Ontario. That after all is the only section remaining to link up these different roads which could be, for the time being at least, turned into a trans-Canada or a Canadian national highway. Therefore as I say, because of the demands upon the province, it is particularly necessary if the road is to be built that the Dominion government should take part in the work. The Dominion government should also take part in this road building from the national aspect of linking up the east with the west.
Now, regarding the cost of the road, I have taken the mileage at 330 miles. I noticed that last session the Prime Minister stated in discussing the resolution then before the house that the cost would run into something like $200,000,000, for a hard surfaced highway. Possibly it would, if the Dominion government undertook to put a hard surfaced highway across Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific, but, as I think I can demonstrate, such a highway is not necessary or even desirable at the present time. All we require is a good

National Highways-Mr. Manion
gravel road. There are fine highways not only in Canada but in the United States of this construction, and they are very popular. I
have motored on quite a number of them myself in the sections south of Fort William and Duluth. Therefore I cannot agree with any such figures as $200,000,000 as representing the cost of completing a transcontinental highway. I think it is a figure simply put forward to discourage this proposed undertaking. Such an expenditure is not necessary at the present time.
But the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson), the Ontario whip, I think it was, made a speech recently, or at least he was quoted in one of the Toronto papers as saying, that the building of this road would cost something in the neighbourhood of four or five hundred million dollars, so that he went a little further than the Prime Minister did. Evidently he was thinking at that time that if he put up a high enough figure it would scare everybody away from it. However, I made it my business to look into some costs of different roads, and I ascertained from the Department of Railways itself, which has a highways branch, formed at the time my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar) was in this house as a member of the government-


Mr. CRERAR:: My hon. friend is wrong in that. The legislation was passed in 1919 for the highways aid, after I had left the government.


Robert James Manion: All right, I am wrong. I accept the hon. gentleman's statement in that. I did not wish to put him in wrong. I was simply quoting him, thinking he was another one of those who were taking a very broad view of the matter. However, I see he is taking rather a narrow view of it-


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend is presuming too much. He does not know yet what my point of view is.


Robert James Manion: I know very well what the hon. gentleman's point of view is. He is going to take the point of view that he is told to take, just as he has always done. He has always taken the point of view decided by the other side of the house even when he was sitting over on this side.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend's imagination is running away with him.


Robert James Manion: Nothing of the kind. I was in the house at the same time the hon. gentleman was here. With regard to the cost of an ordinary gravel road, that was given to me as being an average of $11,000 a mile in

eastern Ontario. They also gave me figures for the building of roads in the Muskoka section, which is very much like the section in northern Ontario, rocky and more or less mountainous. The figure they gave me for a macadam road was $16,000 a mile, and for a water-tight macadam road $29,000. Taking the figures for the building of a road through the Muskoka section as being very much akin to the figures required to build a road through the northern Ontario section, I believe this road could be built for five or six million dollars. But supposing you doubled it, you would still have a figure which would be greatly below the figure given by the Prime Minister, and still more greatly below the figure given by the hon. member for South Perth. That is worth considering, five millions or six millions or seven millions, and if the Ontario government cooperates with the Dominion government in this matter then the cost to the Dominion government would only be half.
In addition to that, it has been suggested by some, although I do not know that I agree with it, that the road might be built through the clay belt, between the two railways, a distance of one hundred and fifty miles, where it would not cost any more than it would in eastern Ontario. I am personally of the opinion, Mr. Speaker, that if the cost were not too great we could make a highway as picturesque as any highway in Europe by sticking as closely as we could to the north shore of lake Superior. You would then have a highway that would attract people from all over this continent.
I have noticed that when this matter has been up for discussion a great deal of the discussion has related to the question of the loss to the railways, although both Mr. Beatty and Sir Henry Thornton are authorities for the statement-I certainly saw Mr. Beatty quoted not so very long ago, and I think Sir Henry Thornton to the same effect-that although the automobile traffic has increased tremendously it has not decreased the earnings of the railways because of the freight and so forth that is given to the railways due to the development of the motor industry.
It might be added that there is no way of getting out of that northern Ontario section except by going through the United States, that is, by motor, after you pass Sault Ste. Marie. If you choose to go west from Sault Ste. Marie you must go across to the Michigan Soo, and if you wish to go by the head of the lakes you have to go via Duluth. And, by the way, that is merely a gravel highway, and the American side of it is largely gravel too. Last year, over that highway, there came into Fort William some thirteen

National Highways-Mr. Black (Yukon)
thousand cars with about fifty thousand tourists from the United States, an increase of something like twenty-five per cent over the previous year. Each year the number of automobile tourists coming in is rapidly increasing, and the tourist question, as has been well pointed out by previous speakers, is of the utmost importance to-day. In fact, it is a great national industry to-day. We have had various estimates from the Bureau of Statistics, and other departments, as to the amount of money spent in this Dominion by tourists last year, the amount given being anywhere from two hundred million to three hundred million dollars, and I thoroughly agree with the remarks made by my hon. friend from Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael), who quoted Mr. Neill, vice-president of the Royal Bank of Canada, as suggesting that we should do more advertising than we do in regard to that industry. Many of the countries of Europe to-day are spending vast sums of money in advertising, bringing tourists into their country-France, Italy, Germany, and even England-because tourist traffic means the spending of large amounts of money. When we built the Canadian Pacific railway many years ago we had hardly anybody living in the prairie provinces, and only a few thousand living west of the Rocky mountains. It required a great vision and great courage at that time to build that road through there, and I think that same vision and courage might well be brought into play at the present time by this government in regard to this national highway. It would bring about a better understanding, I think, between the east and the west. As has been said, it would give an opportunity for the people of the east to visit the west in their motor cars without going out of this country into the great republic to the south, and it would also afford an opportunity for those in the west to come east. It would also give a great impetus to those tourists coming from the United States to visit this country, because there is a desire on the part of most people who are touring in cars to go as far north as they can get. It would also afford a great opportunity for the people of the United States to make a complete tour, coming in at the east, around Niagara Falls, and going clean through to the west, even west of the head of the lakes into the prairie provinces.
There is something else in regard to this question which I think should have been considered by the government, and that very recently; that is, the need of having done something to assist the unemployed in the country. Many of the people who to-day are out of work in various parts of Canada
might well have been employed on such a project as this.
I submit in closing, Mr. Speaker, that in every way one may look at the matter, it seems to me it is a question well worthy of the support of this government, and well worthy of the support of this house, and I venture to make the assertion that if the government left the whole matter to the decision of the house, as most of these resolutions are left, it would be approved, perhaps not unanimously but very largely, by the vote of this chamber. And I submit, very seriously and sincerely, to the government, that they might well reconsider their attitude of last year-none of them have spoken on the question as yet to-day, and I am supposing their attitude is the same-and take the attitude that was taken by all those who spoke, with the exception of two last year, not including the members of the government, and support this project as a very strong Canadian project, and one which would be for the betterment of Canada in every possible way.


George Black: Mr. Speaker, this resolution is, in effect, a statement, that in the opinion of the house a substantial grant should be made to cover the development of highway construction, meaning, of course, national highway construction.
In that connection perhaps it would be fitting to direct the attention of the house to a highway project which is exciting great attention in western Canada and also in the western United States, and with which no doubt the Minister of the Interior is familiar. I refer to the continuation of the Pacific highway through British Columbia and the Yukon to Alaska, which would be typically a national highway. At present the highway extends from Mexico up through the states of California, Oregon and Washington almost to the northerly boundary of British Columbia. Thousands of tourists come over that highway every year to visit Canada, admire the scenery, enjoy our climate and spend their money. I am sure the government are very much in favour of encouraging tourist traffic in Canada, and I think no better contribution could be made along this line than a reasonable grant for the continuation of that highway. As I have said, the road has been built through British Columbia almost to the northern boundary; it is already constructed through Yukon territory and a comparatively small grant would be sufficient to put the highway in shape for tourist traffic. This project is being seriously considered by the government of British Columbia, and in this
438	COMMONS
National Highways-Mr. Black (Yukon)
connection I should like to read to the house the words of the premier of that province, as they appear in a despatch from Ottawa under date of September 9:
A grand plan for an international highway extending from the border of Mexico away up through British Columbia to the Yukon and Alaska was discussed at an interview here to-day between Premier Tolmie of British Columbia and Hon. Charles Stewart, Minister of the Interior. The provincial government is favourable to the plan, but it is of great magnitude, and federal aid will be necessary.
It is understood that Mr. Stewart was prepared to have the Dominion build the Yukon part of it	
That is very good news.
.... but did not commit himself on the other.
I presume that would be the section through British Columbia.
There are some 460 miles of new road in British Columbia, and about 125 miles in the Yukon required to carry out the scheme.
New construction in the Yukon will not total 125 miles, but a great many improvements will be necessary to the present roads to make them suitable for tourist traffic.
The lure of American tourists to the land of the midnight sun in Canada, just as Sw'eden and Norway in like latitudes are the great attraction of Europe, is the particular object of the plan.
Premier Tolmie explained that the highway would run from Tia Juana, Mexico, up the whole Pacific coast to the international boundary of British Columbia, connecting there with the roadway to Hazelton, B.C., and afterwards going on to connect with the Yukon and Alaska systems. "It would give United States people," he said, "an opportunity of visiting Alaska by road through the richest scenery in the world. It would give Canadians access to the Yukon -without going through the United States."
"It is a very large enterprise," Mr. Tolmie continued, "and our satisfactory talk to-day was necessarily of a general or preliminary character, but our Pacific coast people are deeply interested in this plan and we are very hopeful of it ultimately going through."
The matter has gone even further on the other side of the line; already a bill has been passed by the United States Senate and House of Representatives appropriating $25,000 for this purpose.


Charles Avery Dunning: Did you say $25,000?


George Black: 
Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the resolution
under discussion is very interesting to the members of this house and, I am sure, to every citizen of Canada. I have no quarrel with the desire to see a national highway across Canada, although my opinion may differ somewhat as to how that work should be done, so I have very little comment to make on much of what has been said this afternoon. However, I must say that most of the speakers who have addressed the house appear to be of the opinion that the federal govern-

National Highways-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
meat is doing nothing in the way of highway construction or for the purpose of attracting tourist traffic, and I am afraid I cannot agree with those statements.
I was greatly relieved to learn that such a small portion of a national transcontinental highway remains to be constructed; I was under the impression that a very much larger mileage remained. From the remarks which have been made this afternoon I think we may assume that we have a fairly good highway from the Atlantic coast to Sault Ste. Marie in Ontario. I do not think that can be denied, nor do I think any hon. member will advocate any large expenditure on that portion of the highway, which reaches almost half way across Canada. Then we had the statement by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) that the government of Saskatchewan is to undertake the construction of three highways across that province, and he expressed the fear that they might not connect with the highways constructed in Manitoba and Alberta. I can iteassure my hon. friend on that point; I took the precaution to examine the routes suggested by the government of Saskatchewan, and those highways will connect at two points with the highways in Alberta.
I would not make the statement that in the southern part of Alberta there are allweather highways, but I understand that the provincial government intend to have an allweather highway across that province at the earliest possible moment, running from Medicine Hat to Calgary and on to the entrance to the Banff section, this being the first part of a national highway leading from the prairie provinces to the coast. In addition, I know the provincial government of Alberta has been extending the highway from Edmonton eastward, and undoubtedly it will soon reach the town of Lloydminster. Then we will have three highways leading across that province; these may not be all-weather highways, but they will be gravel highways of a fairly good type.
So I think we may assume that one would have very little difficulty at present in travelling from Winnipeg to the Rocky mountains with an automobile at any season of the year, except perhaps in the middle of winter. I believe there remains about forty miles of highway to be constructed in the eastern portion of Manitoba to reach the boundary and connect with the highway presently under construction from Kenora, so really the serious obstacle to an all-Canadian highway at present is the stretch between Sault Ste. Marie and the Manitoba boundary, across which there are roads at broken intervals.
I think I am correct in saying that the provincial government of Ontario has made very rapid progress in the construction of this highway. They have spent annually considerable sums of money upon it, and I think it would not be beyond the bounds of possibility to say that within two years that highway will be entirely completed. At such time the break will be complete, with the exception of the portion which I will deal with later. That section is in the Rocky mountains connecting British Columbia with the prairies.
Now, may I say in passing that I do not wish it to be inferred that the federal government is seeking to avoid responsibility. I must say, however, that I do not think it is the work of the federal government to assist in the construction of these highways. My hon. friend from Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) has stated that we are obligated to assist in the construction of highways because we collect the sum of $27,000,000 by way of tariff through the importation of automobiles into this country. May I remind the hon. member that we collect a great deal of revenue on importations into Canada of various products, and automobiles is only one of them. But every hon. member in this house must agree that the expenditure by the federal government has been tremendously increased. I have no doubt that the $27,000,000 my hon. friend mentioned will, in a very considerable degree, be required for the increased payments to our returned men, when the committee which has to deal with pensions and returned soldier matters has completed its inquiry and made a report to this house. That is only one example of where we may be called upon to make increased expenditures; in every direction increases in expenditure are required by this parliament. Without tiring the house by repeatedly referring to the act of confederation, I have no doubt my hon. friend will admit that the duties of the federal parliament were fairly well defined under that act. No hon. gentleman will contend that the construction of highways was one of the duties that devolved upon the federal government.
Do hon. gentlemen opposite take into consideration the fact that this government is called upon time and again to support the construction of railways into the newer sections of Canada? Year by year such construction is required, more especially in connection with the Canadian National railway system, and no one will contend that this construction is self supporting. The taxpayers of Canada must make their contribution until such times as these newly opened territories are in condition to maintain the railway and pay for the portion of maintenance chargeable to them.
440	COMMONS
National Highways-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
That is a duty that has devolved upon the federal government. It has been contended very frequently by members sitting on the opposite side of this house, that a large sum of unpaid balances of this Canadian National railway system is piling up, year by year, which will have to be taken care of by the taxpayers of this country. I think we should consider the demands that are made upon the federal treasury for expenditures which belong rightfully to this government.
It is the easiest thing in the world to pass a resolution saying that the federal government should bear the responsibility for this or that particular service. Such resolutions sometimes go to the extent of encroaching upon the duties of the provincial governments. May I say to the hon. gentlemen opposite that the federal government, no matter who may be holding the reins of office, will find that there are plenty of demands upon the revenues of the country, without the government taking upon itself responsibilities of a purely provincial nature. May I say that I agree most thoroughly with the statement of my leader that if the provinces require assistance they may get it in the way it has been given to the maritimes and the western provinces. They may get it by the return of their natural resources, and the absolute control of their own money to spend in whatever way they deem best. They would not receive it by way of grants for this service or that service which from time to time may be suggested by some enthusiastic organization such as the Automobile Association of Canada, although we must admit such associations as this launch propaganda for worthy projects.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have been doing something towards the construction of highways in Canada; we are doing something today. We have built a highway through the national parks at Banff, Yoho and Kootenay that will be a connecting link between the west coast and the prairie provinces, and will complete the Rocky mountain section of a trans-Canada highway. We are spending very considerable sums upon that highway, and not only that, but we have spent a very considerable sum to make accessible and improve the scenic values of Banff national park, in order to encourage tourist traffic.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: How much has been
spent, do you know?


Charles A. Stewart: I am unable to give the figures this afternoon. We have spent on the highway in the Rocky mountains in the neighbourhood of $718,000 up to date. Of that highway which consists of 195 miles, 
from Revelstoke to Golden, 157 miles remain to be constructed. Part of that highway should have gone rightfully across Glacier park. Owing, however, to the conditions that prevail there and the short season the highway would be open, we deemed it wise not to construct through Glacier park, but to cooperate with the province of British Columbia in building from Golden to Revelstoke, via the big bend. On this route wre are spending the amount which it would have cost to construct a highway across Glacier Park. We are contributing that amount on the stretch of 195 miles and are constructing our portion on the eastern end of the gap under the supervision of our own engineers. This is the last link in the highway between the prairies and the coast.


Robert James Manion: How much does it cost
per mile?


Charles A. Stewart: I am unable to say. We simply agreed that our share of construction was $850,000, and that is the estimated amount that would have been required to construct the highway across Glacier park. We are in no way joining the provincial government; we are simply making a contribution of the amount it would have cost us to pass through the territory controlled and administered by the federal government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is part of it not being
built by the federal government, then?


Charles A. Stewart: We are expending the whole $850,000 under our own supervision.


Mr. SPENCER:: Who will take care of
the upkeep of the road, after it is built?


Charles A. Stewart: The provincial government will take care of the upkeep of that particular piece of road. We of course maintain the roads in our own park.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The British Columbia
government?


Charles A. Stewart: The British Columbia government will maintain the area outside of the park.
In connection with the tourist traffic I agree with what the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) has to say. I would be very glad to get larger appropriations for advertising for tourist traffic, but I do want to point out that for some years we have been advertising thoroughly in every state of the union, through the natural resources intelligence branch of this department, getting out maps and indicating the roads available, the scenic attractions of the various com-

National Highways-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
munities and sending with that material literature prepared by the provincial government, and in this way getting the information to the automobile, tourist associations and all other associations of that character. I am pleased to say that the tourist traffic of Canada has increased very rapidly from $90,000,000 or more until it is estimated that last year it amounted to well over $300,000,000.
In connection with the tourist business, the provincial governments receive a very substantial benefit. They have a tax upon all the gasoline consumed and, moreover, on all the tourist cars that come into our country as well as cars that come from other directions and travel over the 500 odd miles of park highway that we have constructed, they get without cost to themselves the same revenue that they receive in respect to their own particular highways. As a federal government we get nothing in return for this expenditure. I have on more than one occasion stated that the federal government stands prepared to take over the necessary territory to create a national park in every province in Canada. Just recently we have retained a territory in Saskatchewan and in the negotiations with Manitoba we have retained in that province a territory which we will develop as a national park. All these places will be made as attractive as possible to encourage tourist traffic to come to Canada. All the facilities, roads, and everything else in those parts are, so far as the federal government is concerned, free to the public; the federal government will derive no revenue therefrom.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a licence fee in some cases.


Charles A. Stewart: A mere registration fee on entering the park, for the purpose of keeping track of the people going in and out. That is all the direct motor traffic revenue we get out of the park. That service is maintained for the purpose of encouraging tourist traffic, which no one will deny is very important to this country. As I said before, we stand ready and willing to give those facilities to every province which is desirous of having them, provided we are given the territory free of charge.
In Saskatchewan the creation of a park and the provision of necessary facilities has meant an expenditure so far of something like $200,000, and it will amount to practically $500,000 before we get through with it. Possibly one could estimate the establishment of a park in each one of those provinces at something like half a million dollars, and then there is the annual upkeep which is bound to be more or less expensive as the years go by. Moreover, there are bound to be greater and greater demands for park facilities.
With respect to the statement made by the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Black), the Premier of British Columbia was here some time ago, and was quite enthusiastic about a coast highway through British Columbia and on to Alaska through the Yukon. My hon. friend is quite correct. I at once agreed, on behalf of the federal government, that so far as the Yukon territory was concerned, if that project was to be gone on with, we would be quite willing to build our share of the highway just as we are willing to build our share of highways through the national parks. I was not aware that anything in the nature of a survey was being attempted, although I was given to understand that possibly the British Columbia government would confirm the survey from the Portland canal to the boundary of the Yukon. So far I have not heard whether or not that is the intention of the British Columbia government, but as I say, the federal government is willing to construct what I consider our share of the highway in its entirety across the Yukon, in order not to block the construction of a highway that the people of the west coast think so desirable.
With respect to the other request of the Premier of British Columbia that financial assistance be given, I was unable to speak because that is a matter of policy which would have to be considered by the federal government.
In conclusion, I think the federal government is making a very substantial contribution towards a national highway. I made the statement to the province of Alberta some years ago, when they were considering a highway through Jasper park to connect with what was then the proposed highway to Vancouver, that they would not need to delay for the territory occupied by the Jasper national park. We could, within the space of one year, complete all the highway within the park area, but so far the provincial government have not reached the boundary of Jasper national park. I believe they intend to do so this year and then it will be necessary to build on through Jasper and connect with the highway going on down to Vancouver and, possibly later on, to Prince Rupert. We are providing these facalities; we are doing this advertising in the United States and elsewhere to bring tourists to Canada. We are prepared to provide the scenic attraction in national parks in every province; we are prepared to build and maintain the highways in those parks and give those facilities to the

National Highways-Mr. Guthrie
public practically free of charge. This, in my opinion, is no small contribution to the resolution moved by my hon. friend that the federal government .contribute to a national highway.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for
Fort William (Mr. Manion) was addressing you in regard to this motion, the Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar) interjected a remark which did not agree with my recollection of a matter which took place in the year 1919 when the house passed a bill known as the Highways Act. I gathered from what the Minister of Railways said this afternoon when he interrupted the hon. member for Fort William that he would have the house believe that he was not a party to the legislation which the house passed in the session of 1919. That is not my recollection of the matter, and I think my recollection is correct, and that of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways is astray.
In the year 1919 I happened to be, in a humble capacity, a member of 'the government of Sir Robert Borden, as was also my hon. friend the present Minister of Railways. We introduced into the house, on the 21st of March of that year, the Highways Act. That act represented the policy of the government of that time. It was, of course, preceded by a resolution and I have given the date upon which the resolution was introduced into this chamber. The present Minister of Railways was certainly a member of the government of that day. The resolution was passed; the bill received its first and, I think likely, its second reading. On the 4th of June my hon. friend the present Minister of Railways tendered his resignation to Sir Robert Borden, then Prime Minister of Canada. On the following day, or perhaps the same day, the resignation was read in the house. It is true that the bill was not finally assented to until the 7th of July, but when the policy was adopted by the government as a whole, the Minister of Railways was a party to it and approved it.
When he resigned from the government, he did not resign on account of the highways bill. He was very specific: he resigned on account of the fiscal policy of the government of that day. He was present as a supporter and member of the government when the bill was introduced and the resolutions were carried. He was part and parcel of the administration and must accept his full responsibility for the legislation which was then passed. I also 
was a supporter of the government. I am not going to go into the question now before the chair, more than to say that I too am a supporter of the present resolution.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) has brought up some rather ancient history. If my recollection serves me, my hon. friend was not a member of the Union government during the period that I was a member of it.


Hugh Guthrie: Oh yes, I was.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend was Solicitor General.


Hugh Guthrie: I was a member of the government just the same. Perhaps if my hon. friend knew the situation a little better he would not make that statement.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend was not in the cabinet at that time.


Hugh Guthrie: I did not say that I was in the cabinet.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Then my hon. friend does not know what took place in the cabinet in reference to the highways 'bill.


Hugh Guthrie: I was Solicitor General in that government.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend is quibbling.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My recollection of the
matter is veiy distinct. It is quite true that this legislation was introduced into the house prior to my resigning from the government. The reason the legislation was introduced at that time was that there were probably
500,000	soldiers presently to be demobilized.
It is well to go back to the beginning of this highways legislation so far as this parliament is concerned. Legislation was first introduced in 1912, after the elelotion of 1911. During that election the then leader of the Conservative party, Sir Robert Borden, made some statements of policy, so far as his party was concerned, in respect to the matter of federal assistance to highways should his party be returned. The legislation was introduced in 1912. There was a difference of opinion with that other chamber which is part of the legislative machinery of this country as to the terms of the legislation. The matter was then left in abeyance until 1913, when it was again brought up, but no further progress was made before the outbreak of war. During

National Highways-Mr. Crerar
the war the matter again remained in abeyance, but at its conclusion it was brought up again, not on the principle, as stated in the resolution before the house, that it was recognized that the federal parliament should make a contribution towards highway construction, but in recognition of the fact that there were
500,000	soldiers to be demobilized, and it was necessary to provide some form of employment for their reabsorption into some useful industry.
Coming to the resolution before the house, the preamble reads:
Whereas the need for establishment of highways is greater than in 1919;
That is given as one of the reasons why action as suggested in the concluding paragraph of the resolution should be taken by the federal government, but, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the need for highways is as great now as it was in 1919. Since that time all the provinces of Canada have been spending very large sums of money indeed on highway construction.
The second paragraph of the resolution states that there was a definite recognition by the federal government in 1919 of its responsibility in the matter of highways. That is not my recollection. Let me say again that the chief reason, as I recall, for making the grant at that time was in order to assist in the reestablishment of the demobilized soldiers by providing some form of employment for them. This assistance was given to the provinces at that time largely for that purpose, and the assistance was extended' for several years until the amount of $20,000,000 provided for by the legislation had been granted to the provincial authorities.
I do not know that I can add very much to what my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) has said in regard to this resolution. I think it was recognized at the commencement of our confederation pact that so far as the federal authority was concerned, it was responsible for railway transportation, and responsible for the very important and onerous duty of improving the harbours and rivers of this country for the purposes of navigation. From that earliest period of confederation down to the time when $20,000,000 was granted by the federal government in 1919 for highway construction, the principle had never been advocated that the federal authority was responsible in any degree for the building or maintenance of highways. The federal authority has assumed the responsibility of railway construction, and the responsibility of improving our harbours and rivers, and its obligations in those respects
have been very onerous and heavy indeed. My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior has referred to our obligations in connection with the national railways. They are very heavy, and I am afraid are bound to continue heavy for several years to come. We are developing an outlet, for instance, to the Hudson bay. We are improving the navigation on the St. Lawrence river. The federal authority has built the Welland canal. On all these projects the federal government has spent in the last twenty years, not scores of millions, but hundreds of millions of dollars, and if there is to be any fair basis for distributing the cost of all these works, I submit that you cannot fairly impose on the federal authority the burden, or any part of it, of also building provincial highways. I recognize, of course, that it is a first-class talking point for hon. gentlemen opposite, but, after all, we must have some regard for the financial position of Canada, and for the country's financial obligations. Before the war it was a wholly different matter. Our debt then was a comparatively trivial thing and our national revenue needs were comparatively trivial; but the war added two billions of dollars to our national debt, with its burden of interest, and added forty million dollars a year for pensions. As the Minister of the Interior has intimated, there is not the slightest doubt that when the report is brought down by the pensions committee this session, our obligation in respect to pensions will be still further increased, and quite properly so.
That being the case, I submit that it is not reasonable, in view of all the assistance which it is giving at the present time in building and maintaining highways in national parks, to expect the federal government to saddle itself with this additional expenditure. We must have some regard to the taxpaying capacity of the Canadian people, and I submit that if my hon. friends opposite would have some regard for that phase of the question, they would perhaps not be so insistent in urging this expenditure as they have been this afternoon.


Mr. J. C. BRADY (Skeena):: I should like to give one or two reasons why the government should not hesitate to support this resolution. The history of our roads is one of the most fascinating and instructive stories in Canada's development. The provinces of Ontario and Quebec, the cities of Montreal, Toronto, Kingston, and the ancient city of Quebec, primarily owe their great development to the roads that were inaugurated in the early years of Canada's history. We find' likewise that England's great industrial develop-
National Highways-Mr. Brady

ment was due in a large part to her splendid system of roads. All European countries are to-day paying more and more attention to improving and extending their systems of public highways. That being the case, it seems to me strange to hear from the government benches opposition to this resolution, and arguments which are unconvincing because of the fact that they are not in accord with the practical development of Canada at this time and period.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I read with deep interest the story of the Canada Highways Act when it was first placed on the statute books, in 1919, and this is the first time I have heard that there was a secondary reason for granting $20,000,000 for the development and improvement of a highway system throughout the Dominion. I am sure that no member of this house, and certainly no one outside the house, will say that that expenditure did not help forward the progress of Canada by leaps and bounds. The result of the non-continuance of federal aid to highways is that those parts of Canada, particularly western and mid-Canada, are to-day sorely handicapped regarding road construction, and are, in consequence, the only provinces that in recent years that have failed to keep pace with the other portions of Canada. In view of this, sir, I wonder if the Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar) really conscientiously believes that the preamble of this resolution is not in accordance with the facts.
He denies that the need for the establishment of highways is greater to-day than it was in 1919. I submit, sir, that the need for highways is necessarily greater to-day than it was in 1919. What do we find to-day? On all sides of this house we find cumulative evidence of the fact that the great need of Canada to-day is roads, and more roads. There has been a marvellous increase in our tourist trade, and an equally marvellous increase in the number of Canadian owned automobiles and motor busses. Furthermore, there are wonderful opportunities in western Canada for a farsighted policy on the part of our government which would develop the tremendous wealth lying there. Any governmental expenditure made to encourage that development will come back tenfold, as will any federal expenditure which we are asking towards the completion of this portion of our national highways.
The point I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, is that we are asking for something which we believe will result in the better development of Canada as a whole. When the Canada Highways Act was in operation, $80,-

000	was granted each province over a five year period, and the balance was distributed in proportion to population. Since that money was spent British Columbia-which to my mind presents the greatest road problem of any of our provinces-is being forced to develop, for the interest, of the Dominion government as much as for the province, this immense undertaking. I should like you, Mr. Speaker, to picture for one moment the situation of the city that the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) said he hoped would very soon be linked up with our transcontinental highway. I refer to Prince Rupert. Do you know, sir, that to-day we have not a road linking uip that city with any other city or town in Canada? Only ninety miles of road construction from the port of Prince Rupert would bring us in touch with our Canadian highway and enable the people of that city to travel to Vancouver or eastern Canada. Now, what would that road cost?
1	believe it will be a costly undertaking, but it is going to open up one of the finest scenic sections, n-ot merely of British Columbia but of any part of the Dominion. I refer to that wonderful stretch of river and mountain scenery between Prince Rupert and Terrace, a distance of ninety miles.
Is it possible we do not know that in the last ten years public opinion in Canada has changed with regard to our highways? Changed conditions bring about a new set of facts that we must face squarely. What are these facts? We are in a great machine age, the most marvellous period of development in any past era. We demand these highways for our own national development. It is not a mere petty local demand; we are making the demand looking at Canada as a whole. True, we have our railways, but they can do for the development of the country exactly what they are intended to do and nothing more. They are intended for transportation purposes, for colonization purposes, and as great avenues for the transportation of freight and passengers. But, sir, what about our roads? Roads to-day are part of our modern civilization. They are for the use, not of the wealthy alone but of all the people; and if we do not get a sufficient program of road building put into effect, I want to tell you that you to a great extent are stopping the natural progress and development of the very country that is willing to return, to you far more than you can give it.
I do not want to labour this point, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say anything hypercritical regarding the action of the government. But let me point out that there

National Highways-Mr. Kaiser
is not any city, town or village in Canada where you will not find public bodies pledged to the continued development of the highways of Canada. Is not that public opinion? We cannot excuse ourselves on the plea that the federal government is spending money indirectly for purposes in respect to which we are asking it to spend directly. We know that the federal government is spending money, but that is merely avoiding the issue. Nothing would more substantially conduce to the development of a real Canadian spirit, a real national spirit, than for this government to build across Canada a road that would enable a Canadian to travel in his own country from Vancouver or Prince Rupert to Halifax. If that, were done I am convinced that by this investment we would get back not a threefold but a fourfold return for the small amount of money required to build up something which would appeal to all Canadians, develop a pride in ourselves, and in a few years increase our wealth by millions of dollars.


Mr. T. E. KAISER (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I do not think that we should regard this as a provincial matter. A highway to-day is an interprovincial undertaking. The idea of having a grand highway stretching across the continent of America is a dream that we have had for many a year, but one that can be accomplished only with the aid of the Dominion government. Why should the Dominion government assist in this work? The work itself is commendable. All right. But it is said that it is for the automobile traffic. If it is, then the reasons why this government should assist are tenfold. The government of this country has derived tremendous revenues in the shape of excise tax, luxury tax, and customs, by virtue of the application of the automobile to modern life, and the only way in which the Dominion government can recompense the people is to help in the building of highways.
The government is disturbed at this time over the balance of trade. These highways bring into Canada three hundred millions of dollars, we are told.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is all the tourist
trade.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Surely that sum of money
helps largely in the matter of the balance of trade between this country and the United
States.
There is just one other matter that I would like to refer to, Mr. Speaker, and that is the old trick of this government, whenever we point out some line of progress, some line of activity that might make for the advancement
of the people, which reminds me of a lot of expert card players. They hold down in their desks a "cold deck" of cards, and when they want to block progress they bring it up in the form of the British North America Act. If the British North America Act were being framed to-day instead of in 1867, many of these matters that we now look upon as being entirely of Dominion importance would receive the hearty support of the people and of the framers of our constitution. I am entirely in favour of this resolution. Good roads make for the progress of the country. They bring us in returns in many ways that we had not thought of until we took the time to investigate. I passed through sections of the province of Ontario twenty years ago and found many of the roads impassible, and many of the houses and the barns not creditable to our country, and the fences neglected. Since then I have seen the roads improve through those sections, and immediately the houses and bams were improved, lines of trees were planted; in fact sufficient improvements take place along those very roads to make them decided assets to the country. I believe that we should lend our support to this resolution. The people of the country demand that we shall have a national highway from the Alantic to the Pacific, interprovincial, supported by the Dominion government.


Mr. O. B. PRICE (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few remarks to what has already been said in regard to this resolution. I agree with the remarks made by my hon. friend from Skeena (Mr. Brady) that the great problem of transportation does not rest solely with the railways. It also has much to do with the highways throughout the country, because the farming interests are very much concerned over a free and easy means of access to the railways. That in itself is a very important factor, and I was very much surprised to hear the remarks made this afternoon by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar), and the hon. the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), to the effect that the country had no money with which to go ahead with a project of this nature. When the people of Canada consider the necessity for expenditures such as we have had during the last few years, they will realize that there are other problems, such as the one now under discussion, that are of far greater importance than those for which other expenditures have been made.
I have only to refer for a moment to the expenditures that have been made with regard to immigration. What do we find? The government to-day are spending millions of dol-

National Highways-Mr. Price
lars on immigration, yet they are not spending one cent to alleviate the unemployment situation. As a matter of fact the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) will not even move to call an unemployment conference, although requested to do so by the grand president of one of the leading labour organizations of this country. This is a very important question, and I am surprised that the Prime Minister of Canada has not taken advantage of it by building a national highway from coast to coast at this time in an endeavour to relieve the unemployment situation in Canada. If ever a leader had an example set before him I think the present Prime Minister of Canada has. We find President Hoover doing everything possible, calling an unemployment conference, gathering together the different heads of manufacturing concerns, labour organizations, and commercial enterprises of all kinds, doing everything in his power to relieve the unemployment situation in the United States. That movement on the part of President Hoover has met with considerable success.
I do not propose going into figures at this time, Mr. Speaker, but I also wish to draw attention to other expenditures which might have been left alone. I refer to the millions that have been spent on driveways and parks, largely in the vicinity of Ottawa, and on retaining wall work which has been carried on during summer and winter, ever since I have had the honour of being a member of this house. These expenditures have been continuing, yet when it comes to a time when men need work, when we ask for more in the way of pensions for returned men or when we ask for something for a national highway I am surprised that the Prime Minister and his government can find no way by which this great work can be carried on at this time when unemployment is so prevalent. I believe the whole country would back him up if he took this action; I am sure if he would undertake something along this line, which would help improve the unemployment situation, the people generally would show their appreciation of such an act.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Cantley: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of detaining the house but for a few minutes. I am sorry the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) is not in his place, as I would like to tell him that 
we have in the province of Nova Scotia some
20,000	miles of highway. AYe have improved about 14,000 miles, and when it is remembered that we have less than 600,000 people in that province it will give some idea as to the magnitude of the task. I notice that the Minister of the Interior is quite willing to spend $1,500,000 or $2,000,000 for highways in the western provinces, but I would remind him that we in the maritime provinces have built our grand trunk highway from Sydney in the east, not only through Nova Scotia but also through the province of New Brunswick to the eastern borders of the province of Quebec.
The Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar) referred to the millions of dollars which have been spent upon the Hudson bay undertaking. AA7e did not object to that, although we do not participate in any benefits derived, and should it prove to be a success, which I doubt very much, it will be to the detriment of the eastern provinces.
In the absence of the Minister of the Interior I would like to ask those few members of the government who are in the house what has been done in the way of the creation of public parks in the province of Nova Scotia and the maritime provinces generally. He and other members of the government are quite prepared to cut western garments out of the cloth the property of all the people, which is owned by the people of the maritimes just as much as it is by the people of the central and western provinces, without any disposition upon their part to make recompense for the land alienated in that way. Millions of dollars are spent for the beautification of Ottawa, but when it comes to the matter of the expenditure of a small amount of money on highways in the maritimes we are told that it is impossible to do it, that it conflicts with the British North America Act. That act seems to give the government and its supporters something upon which to hang their hats when it comes to refusing aid of any kind to the smaller provinces.
I am not at all enamoured of the reputed great profit accruing from the tourist traffic,
I do not believe that $300,006,000 does come into this country annually through that channel. A certain portion of these tourists are simply gypsy tourists, who expend a few dollars weekly on one meal and a bath; the balance of their expenditure is made in the small grocery stores along the highway. If we had no American tourists travelling on our roads in Nova Scotia some people who have passed over would be alive to-day, and the number of our cripples would be smaller

National Highways-Mr. Cantley
I want to say to the few members of the government who are present at the moment that the only way in which justice in this matter can be done to the maritimes is by carrying out the provisions of the resolution now before the house, and I submit, in looking back over the history of this Dominion during the last sixty years, that that is only simple justice to the smaller provinces. Reference has been made to the disabilities arising out of the British North America Act. As has been pointed out before, the government can always find in that act ample reason for refusing to the maritimes any plea put before them calling for the contribution of a single dollar from the treasury of this country. I *would remind them that the money of this country is the money of all provinces; it is contributed to by all provinces and they should each in turn receive fair treatment from the government of the day, be it Liberal or be it Conservative. The time may soon come when there will be a change and when that day does arrive we will hear arguments from the other side not less pressing than those they are hearing to-day from us on this side.


Mr. W. R. FANSHER (Last Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I will not detain the house any longer than has the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Cantley). Two ministers of the crown have spoken this afternoon upon this resolution and both have indicated that the treasury should be safeguarded, especially when any expenditures interfered with the provisions of the British North America Act. If I remember correctly, the resolution proposed last year was worded identically as is the present resolution, but so far in the present discussion there has been no mention made of the market road. A good deal of the discussion of last year centred around this aspect of the road situation, and I would draw the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) to a situation wherein he could assist very materially in the building of roads, especially in the western provinces. A very marked change has taken place during the last few years in the manufacture of road-making machinery, and one of the modern pieces of equipment is the new caterpillar or crawler tractor. This type of tractor is used to haul large graders, and by their use tifrnpikes can be constructed much more economically than by any other method. Our market roads have been greatly improved since this type of tractor has come into use. If municipalities desire to organize into units and to construct their market roads at cost, the only way they can do it and do it as cheaply as can a
contractor, is to obtain one of these machines and carry out their program. These municipalities may be composed of farmers, and if as such they delegate one or two of their number to purchase one of these tractors, they are faced immediately with a duty of 27i per cent and 2J per cent sales tax, or a total of 30 per cent. If one of the councillors, as a farmer, wishes to buy the same tractor he is faced with a duty of only 17i per cent, so that there is a considerable difference. If anything should be constructed as nearly at cost as possible, it is roads, especially market roads; but here we have discrimination, due principally, I think, to departmental rulings. I am sure the minister has had this drawn to his attention, because the municipal organization in the province from which I come brought it to my attention last year and I took it up with the late Minister of Finance, Mr. Robb. I would especially appeal to the minister to-night, that one way in which the government can assist in the building of roads throughout Canada is levelling down this great discrepancy that now exists. He told us the other day that the steel schedules were up for revision before the tariff board, and I hope he will give serious consideration to this, as it will mean the saving of a great deal of money in building roads in Western Canada.
I feel this is all that it is necessary for me to say. I wish to draw this to his attention to-night, so that he can have the matter in mind when he brings down his budget, and remove the discrimination, especially as it applies to one of the greatest assets we have, namely, market roads.


Mr. ROBERT McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, on the resolution which was before the house last year I did not give expression to my opinion except by the vote which I cast at that time, but the resolution as now moved takes it for granted that because the government of 1919 took a certain action with regard to highways the present government should take the same action today. In that connection I may say that although an amount of $20,000,000 was expended over a period of five years following 1919, that was done in anticipation of what was likely to happen when the soldiers returned. There was no other reason than the anticipation of the unemployment situation that would be created.
Another important matter to take into consideration in discussing this question, especially in relation to what happened in 1919 and what may happen to-day, is that our provinces now are in receipt of revenues that formerly they were not receiving to anything like the same extent. I might just mention
448	COMMONS
National Highways-Mr. McKenzie
the vast increase that has taken place in automobile licences during the last ten years. There is also the imposition of the gasoline tax, which means an enormous revenue to the provinces. In addition the subsidies have been increased and there is the revenue from liquor sales. Therefore, when these things are taken into consideration, practically all the arguments in favour of the resolution of 1919 are now non-existent.
Another matter which must be taken into account is that the $20,000,000 which was expended in 1919 and subsequent years is largely borrowed money and now constitutes part of the national debt, on which we are still paying interest. To my mind the Dominion parliament should not be called upon to raise money for road construction. We have other bodies, provincial and municipal authorities, which have all the power in their own hands to raise money for the construction of roads, and it should be left with them to raise the money as they see fit.
Hon. members in the far comer of the house appear to vie with one another this year in their endeavours to make good fellows of themselves at the expense of the public treasury. To prove this we have only to refer to the various resolutions on the order paper. They are willing to expend the public money for any purpose whatever in order to make good fellows of themselves; but unless things are different in Alberta from what they are in Saskatchewan, we shall hear the same people condemning the government for the vast increases in expenditure in administering the affairs of the country.
The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) stated that the provinces should be given equal treatment in the matter of highway construction. That is one of the reasons why I am opposed to this resolution. If there were no other reason for my opposing it, it would be the fact that was brought out by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), who, speaking to a similar resolution introduced last year, said he was advised by the engineers that 600 miles of new road added to what we have would give us a Canadian highway-although he later admitted that this was mostly in Ontario. I do not feel that I can support this resolution to use the money of the taxpayers in the province from which I come to build new roads in Ontario. We saw recently in glaring headlines across the newpapers that Ontario had the largest surplus in its history. If that be the case, Ontario should be called upon to construct these 600 miles of road and complete the national highway.

A national highway would be most desirable, I am free to admit, but many things are desirable that are not economically practicable, and a national highway at this time is not economically practicable. We should devote our time for a good many years yet to the construction of our market roads. A great deal of work can still be done along that line in all our provinces and I do not believe in increasing the burden upon our taxpayers at the present time for the construction of a national highway. For this reason I am opposed to the resolution.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: The hon. member for Assiniboia stated that he was strongly against the building of a trans-Canada highway.


Robert McKenzie: No.


Robert Gardiner: He also stated that he was in favour of the construction of market roads more particularly for the benefit of the farmers than for the completion of this so-called trans-Canada highway. If the hon. member had only read the resolution he would have seen very clearly that it does not call for the expenditure of money for the purpose of building a trans-Canada highway. It is primarily for the purpose of assisting the provinces to build highways within their borders. They may be local highways, market roads or any other class of roads which the government, if they would make the grant, would determine was in the best interests of the country.
The discussion this afternoon has centred very largely on the question of a trans-Canada highway. When the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) spoke this afternoon, he intimated that with the exception of three or four hundred miles this road was practically completed. Let me call the attention of the house particularly to the situation in Alberta. If the Minister of the Interior imagines for a moment that we have from Medicine Hat to Calgary an all-weather highway which tourists can travel on at any season of the year except in the depth of winter, I am afraid he is forgetting the geography of that part of the country. That road is merely a dirt highway and when it is wet nobody can travel on it at all. So far as I am aware there is very little gravel road running east and west in any of the three western provinces. Probably there is a little west of Winnipeg, but on the remainder of the road, which might be called a trans-Canada highway, there is very little gravel. The hon. member who has just taken his seat objected to Ontario getting substantial grants of money for the purpose of building this trans-Canada highway in northern Ontario.

National Highways-Mr. Gardiner


Robert McKenzie: Then the hon. gentleman agrees that this does mean a trans-Canada highway?


Robert Gardiner: Certainly not; I am
merely replying to what has been said. As I was saying, my hon. friend stated that he would be more favourable to a grant of money for building roads within the various provinces. We have in Alberta a situation that is different probably from that in any other province. We have had more vacant land there in recent years, and we have had settlers going in back from the railway, not twenty miles, but sometimes two or three hundred miles-. The Minister of the Interior will remember that the Alberta government, when he was a member of it, had to provide for colonization roads. They had also to provide railways, on which the province lost large sums of money, primarily because'the federal government did not restrict settlement on the lands it then held. Under these circumstances I maintain that something is coming to the province of Alberta at least, for the building of highways to permit the people now on the land to have some means of transportation for their products. I feel, therefore, that this resolution merits sympathetic consideration.
A good deal has been said this afternoon with regard to taking care of the funds of the Dominion government, and in some measure I agree with what has been said. It has been objected that if you make these grants from time to time, the taxes will be much higher. I would point out, however, that whenever this government thought it expedient to provide money for any purpose whatsoever, they could always find the money. Take, for instance, the Maritime Freight Rates Act. There was an illustration of the government making, practically for political purposes or on grounds of political expediency, certain grants of money to the tune of paying twenty per cent of the freight rates within the maritime area. I am not now criticizing that legislation, but last year the expenditure on that account cost the country $5,500,000, and that act is going to continue to cost the country large sums of money as long as it remains in force. It is futile, therefore, for members on the treasury benches to complain that the government is hard up for money and that money cannot be granted for the purpose set forth in this resolution.
I come to the question of subsidies. It has been intimated from the treasury benches that the proper way to deal with this matter is to give subsidies to the provinces. I agree that that is the proper way, and if the government would only rearrange the subsidies so that the 2419-29
provincial government would have a little more money with which to build roads, that might fill the bill; but in the absence of any such action on the part of the government it is only natural that we should bring this resolution before the house. The government did not have any difficulty in providing over
81,400,000	as a special subsidy for the maritime provinces. I was in agreement with that when it passed, and I am still, but when that special subsidy was granted to the maritimes it was clearly understood that the whole question of subsidies would be considered at a federal-provincial conference with a view to increasing the subsidies to all the provinces. This has mot been done. It is necessary for us to refer to these other measures of assistance in order that we may secure for the western provinces sufficient funds to assist us in building our roads.


Mr. R. K. SMITH (Cumberland):: I shall not detain the house very long. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley), earlier in the evening gave some figures with respect to the mileage of road in the province of Nova Scotia under the jurisdiction of the highways department. I wish to give figures showing the cost of maintenance and construction of the roads in the province of Nova Scotia in the years shortly after confederation, and compare them with what it cost the province of Nova Scotia last year for maintenance fixed charges and capital expenditure on the provincial highways.
In 1867 the provincial highways cost the government of Nova Scotia $180,700; in 1870, $214,200; last year, the fiscal year 1929, $1,800,000 was expended for maintenance, $782,200 for fixed charges, and $1,124,200 by way of capital expenditure. In other words, in 1929 alone it cost the government of Nova Scotia $3,706,400 for its highways. That amount is almost one-half the total revenue of the province. I repeat, it takes almost one-half the total revenue of the province to keep pace with the times and keep the roads in proper condition to attract tourists and provide proper means of transportation for our own people. I think, therefore, that we can wholeheartedly support this resolution, which does not call for a transcontinental highway but merely for a five-year federal contribution to the different provinces to enable them to get their highway services up to a point where they will not be such a load on the provincial treasury as they are to-day.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): The resolution under discussion has been so framed as to permit those who advocate three different kinds of highway pro-

450	COMMONS
National Highways-Mr. Dunning
posals to support it. We have heard very valuable contributions to the debate this afternoon from those who believe that the resolution would involve the construction of a national highway. We have heard from those who believe that it would involve the government making grants to the provinces to enable them to construct market roads. We have heard from those who believe that a national highway is now all but completed, and that this resolution simply involves the federal government giving assistance to close what have been described as the gaps, the only considerable gap named being, I believe, that in northern Ontario. I would point out, however, that if this policy were adopted, in all human probability this house would find itself in future years committed to a policy of a national highwa3r, and of a hard surfaced all-weather highway at that; and therefore in approaching the matter I think we should look at it from the point of view of what it will grow into rather than from the standpoint of the somewhat smaller expenditures contemplated by those who have spoken hitherto in this debate.
Reference has been made to members of the government "trotting out," as it was described, the "old British North America Act." I do not think, Mr. Speaker, we should speak disparagingly of that enactment. After all, it sets out first what are our constitutional responsibilities in this parliament, and, second, what are the constitutional responsibilities of the provincial legislatures. This resolution does not call upon us to discharge what is a federal constitutional responsibility. This parliament and previous parliaments have discharged continuously the constitutional responsibility of the Dominion in regard to transportation. With respect to water transportation, the Dominion to-day is carrying practically the whole of the load of providing such facilities; harbours, rivers, our great canal systems-all are wholly Dominion responsibilities. The Dominion is carrying its constitutional load with respect to railway transportation. In fact the Dominion is now discharging obligations annually which were originally assumed by the provinces with respect to railways. In many of the provinces, Mr. Speaker, the provincial governments assumed, for reasons which seemed good to themselves at the time, the responsibility of guaranteeing the bonds of railway companies provincially incorporated for the purpose of building railways wholly within the borders of the province. With the exception of two railways, one in British Columbia and the other in Ontario, the Dominion is to-day 
discharging whatever responsibilities attach to these provincial guarantees, and they amount to a very considerable sum. I have not the figures under my hand, but I do not t.hin.lr that $100,000,000 in capital expenditure is stating too much in regard to the provincial transportation guarantees which to-day are being discharged by the federal authority instead of by the provincial governments which originally gave them. Then the Dominion is called upon to assume a responsibility to-day in connection with a new form of transportation-aerial transportation. Who will deny that the backbone of aerial transportation in Canada to-day is the air mail system which is being developed by the Dominion government? Through the contracts which are being let from time to time by the Postmaster General, regular air mail routes are established and are used by the general public of Canada for the carriage of passengers and freight. In that regard the provinces are assuming at the present time no financial responsibility.
That, then, is our constitutional responsibility, and we are discharging it. What we are asked,' as a Dominion parliament, by a resolution such as this is to do as a matter of grace what we are not constitutionally obligated to do-as a matter of grace to make grants to the provinces in order that they may be the better able to discharge their constitutional responsibilities. The framers of the British North America Act did not contemplate grants being made systematically as a matter of grace. I opposed the system of making grants as a matter of grace when I was a provincial minister, and I take the same attitude to-day. I take the attitude that the fields of taxation are delimited as between the federal and provincial authorities; their obligations are broadly delimited also, and if the provinces find themselves unable to exploit reasonably as they may their fields of taxation to carry out the constitutional obligations imposed upon them, then it is the business of the Dominion and of the provinces in conference assembled to consider whether or not the free subsidies now granted-as a matter of the constitution, not as a matter of grace-by this parliament to the provinces should be increased.
Why do I say that? Not only from the point of view of protecting the federal treasury, Mr. Speaker-that is not the allimportant thing-but as a matter of safeguarding the autonomy of the provinces themselves. I speak from experience as a provincial minister. Others in this house on both sides have had the experience of de-

National Highways-Mr. Dunning
bating this matter from the point of view of the provinces in the various legislatures. The Dominion comes along to a province and says: As a matter of grace we are prepared to vote to you a certain sum of money for a certain period of years, provided you do such and so. That is a distinct invitation to the province; indeed, it is often a monetary consideration to the province to embark upon a policy which otherwise the province might not consider itself able to undertake at the time. That was the case as a matter of fact with the province of Alberta at the time the Dominion Highways Act was first enacted. It did not feel itself in a position to take advantage of that legislation, it did not feel it could afford to raise the sum of money necessary to put up the sixty per cent of the total amount provided for by the act, and for a number of years not only that province, but other provinces did not find it possible to avail themselves of the act, and as a matter of fact its terms had to be extended from year to year over a period of yeans beyond the original term, in order that the .provinces might be able to take up the quota prescribed for them.
The same, Mr. Speaker, its true with respect to others of these grants which have been made as a matter of grace. I am of the opinion that if that principle were continued and expanded, as it could be from time to time, it would lead to a centralization of governmental and parliamentary authority which is distinctly not contemplated by our constitution. If there is need for further grants from this Dominion to the provinces, I submit, sir, there is a constitutional way to do it, and that way is by gathering the provinces together and subsequently this parliament deciding to suggest to the imperial parliament an amendment to the constitution -as has in fact been done on previous occasions-enlarging the amount paid by the Dominion to the provinces. And it must be remembered that the subsidies provided for in the British North America Act are free subsidies. This parliament imposes no conditions that any part of the moneys so granted shall be spent for highways, for technical education, or for this or that purpose; the subsidies paid leave the provinces entirely free to control their own policies in their own legislatures as contemplated by the constitution.
Now, with respect to the purely financial side of the matter, I have pointed out that the Dominion is at the present time discharging-and discharging I think, very fully -its financial obligations with regard to water 2419-291
transportation, air transportation and rail transportation. The provinces have had the opportunity, during recent years, of very much enlarging their revenues-revenues of a kind which are pecularily applicable to the objects sought by this resolution. I have reference to the tax on motor vehicles mentioned this afternoon by the member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) and also the tax on gasoline, which has become so general during the past few years. My hon. friend from Kindersley quoted figures indicating the amounts of revenue the provinces receive from these two sources. I think he quoted for 1928 the immense total of $31,500,000, which he said was received by the provinces that year from the proceeds of taxation of automobiles and gasoline. Since that time, may I inform him, some of the provinces have increased their tax on gasoline and others of them which formerly did not impose the tax are now imposing it, and it is a constantly increasing source of revenue to them. Might I point out that $31,500,000 capitalized would provide for $600,000,000 of road construction so far as the capital expenditure on the initial construction is concerned. By that I do not mean that the provinces could, in the nature of things, as a result of 'their gasoline and motor taxes, build S600,000,000 worth of roads, because I know from experience that they require to provide for the maintenance of their existing roads. At any rate the present gasoline and motor taxes do provide a very substantial revenue to the provinces, and in every province you will hear it stated by the responsible ministers, and by the members of the legislatures, that it is a sound principle for those who use the roads to pay for them. It is upon that basis that the gasoline tax has been imposed, because the consumption of gasoline is, to some extent at any rate, an index of the extent to which the individual purchasing it uses the roads which are being maintained by the province at the expense of the province.
In all the addresses we have listened to on this subject, Mr. Speaker, no one has suggested where the money should come from; no one has suggested the imposition of taxation by the Dominion in order to provide for the expenditure contemplated by the scheme. That, I submit, is a reasonable thing to ask, having regard to the tremendous obligations under which this Dominion stands at the present time-its tremendous obligation with respect to the war, with respect to interest upon the national debt, with respect to pensions, and with respect to railways. We have
_	COMMONS
National Highways-Mr. Dunning
a tremendous responsibility with respect to railway obligations. None of the provinces of Canada will come forward this year and volunteer to pay a portion of the deficit upon the Canadian National railway system, in spite of the fact that a part of the deficit is chargeable to the guarantees which the provinces themselves created in the first place. So I say it would have been quite reasonable for hon. members to have suggested that the finance minister might raise the money necessary to carry out the terms of this resolution by imposing an excise tax on gasoline. It would, to say the least, be as wholly within the competence of the parliament of Canada to impose a tax on gasoline as it is to-day within the competence of provincial legislatures to do the same thing. But no one suggests where the money shall come from. All these resolutions presuppose a tremendous surplus in Dominion revenues available for making grants by grace to provincial authorities to enable them to do things which are properly their own constitutional function. It is true, Mr. Speaker, that we have been favoured-and I hope we shall continue to be favoured-by surpluses of revenue over expenditure so far as Dominion finances are concerned. But is it not important to the people of this country that the process of debt reduction should continue, and the process of tax reduction as well? Neither of these processes can continue if year by year we embark upon new responsibilities, particularly responsibilities of a character which we are not constitutionally obligated to perform.
I believe the people of this country do expect a continuance of debt reduction and a continuance of tax reduction, and in order to accomplish that I say we have a right, first, to take stock, to make sure first of all that we are discharging the obligations which are constitutionally ours, and, second, to take care that we can do that and still have a margin, and to take care that that margin is devoted towards reducing the public debt and the burden of Dominion taxation.
I cannot support the resolution. The speeches which have been made with regard to it give me no clear idea of what the supporters have in mind as an obligation to impose upon this Dominion by the terms of the resolution. Some of them desire just a little piece of road, only a few miles to close a gap. Others want a hard-surfaced national highway-a splendid thing, a very desirable thing; it is coming in Canada. Others want it to be wide enough to enable grants to be made to the provinces to build main market roads.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it is the obligation of hon. members of this house when they bring forward resolutions of this kind, imposing as they would, if implemented, a load upon the Dominion treasury, to tell the house the amount of financial obligation involved in carrying into effect the terms of the resolution proposed. Ontario is the province which has been referred to by a number of the speakers as having within its borders the gap which at present prevents continuous travel by road from eastern Canada to western Canada.


Robert James Manion: And the province of Manitoba, partly.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, and a little in the province of Manitoba, which I understand is already arranged for by the province of Manitoba. However that may be, the province of Ontario is, without doubt, the wealthiest province in the Dominion. The surplus reported a few days ago by that province does not indicate that it is in any need of grants by grace from this parliament in order to enable it to discharge its constitutional obligations. I would also point out to my hon. friends from Nova Scotia and Alberta who spoke to this resolution that they did not discuss, or name in their resolution, the basis upon which division should be made of any moneys which might be voted, by grace, by this parliament. It will be remembered that in the former case the moneys were voted to be granted to the provinces on the basis of population. The province which had the most people, got the most money, and the province which got the most money has still the biggest gap in any national highway system. That is not a criticism of the province of Ontario. They used the money in those parts of the province where it was most needed and where their people were. That is a very natural thing. But I would like my hon. friends from the province of Alberta and the province of Nova Scotia to express some views as to the principle which should be followed in dividing such moneys among the provinces if they were granted. These questions I have endeavoured to raise are all questions-


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Last year
members from Alberta, on this side of the house at least, made it quite clear in the debate that took place then that they considered the mileage basis to be the fairest way of distributing the amount of a grant.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, Mr. Speaker, in
answer to that I can venture the assertion

National Highways-Mr. Adshead
that had it been based upon mileage in the resolution there would not be the apparently unanimous support for it which now obtains on the other side of the house-


Mr. McRAE:: Speak for yourself.


Charles Avery Dunning: -any more than there would be unanimous support for a resolution which called merely for a national highway.
Hon. members, in addressing the house, have made it very clear as to what they desire. Some have asked for a national highway, others for grants to provinces to enable them to build main market roads. I suppose hon. members-


James Arthurs: Is the hon. gentleman
cognizant- of the plans of the United States and how the money is divided there?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, I think I am fairly cognisant of their plan. Is my hon. friend advocating a United States system of dealing with this highway?


James Arthurs: So far as federal grants are concerned, yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, there is another
opinion slightly different from some that we have heard this afternoon.
I cannot vote for this resolution, first, because of what I have previously stated; second, because the movers of it and those speaking in support of it do not indicate what the financial load shall be upon the Dominion, nor do they indicate in the resolution any principle upon which division should be made between the provinces which are to be served by it; and, finally, because I believe this Dominion has at the present time, in connection with water transportation and air transportation, with its tremendous responsibility with respect to railway transportation, with the need that exists for progressively reducing her public debt and reducing taxation, plenty to take care of without going, by grace, into the field of provincial responsibility and handing out money to another authority for a purpose which is really their own.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I
had not intended to speak on this resolution, but the speeches of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) and the hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) compel me to make a point or two with regard to the prairie provinces.
The hon. member for Pictou made special reference to the claims of the province of Nova Scotia. In that regard may I impress upon the Minister of Finance, whom I am sorry to see leaving the chamber, that the
prairie provinces occupy a position distinctly different from that occupied to-day by the provinces of eastern Canada. The eastern provinces always have had their own natural resources; Ontario has drawn great revenues from its timber limits, its mines and other natural resources, so Ontario has been better able to provide for those matters which are under the control of the provinces only. The minister said we were asking for an act of grace. As far as the province of Alberta is concerned we are not asking for anything as an act of grace; we are simply asking for an act of justice. The provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have not had their natural resources; they have received no revenue from mines, timber limits, oil leases or licences, or other matters of that kind. The revenue from those sources has gone to the Dominion government, and the province of Alberta has been crippled because of that fact.
How long have the prairie provinces been waiting for those -resources;? We have been waiting since 1911, and probably longer than that. I heard Sir Robert Borden state in tiie city of Calgary that the Conservative government would not be in office twenty-four hours before the natural resources would be returned to Alberta. Eighteen years have passed, during which time all the revenues have been going to the federal treasury, and because of that loss of revenue we are compelled to ask the Dominion government to help us along these lines. Go back to 1911, when those natural resources were promised. Ever since that time they have been a political football, pushed from one party to the other for various reasons until this year, and as yet we have had no revenue from them; as yet nothing has come into the province of Alberta whereby she could fulfil her obligations with respect to roads and technical education. Take the amount paid the Dominion government for oil licences, mining licences, timber licences and so on from 1911 to the present time; hand that amount to the province of Alberta and we will not ask this government to perform an act of grace. All we are asking is an act of justice. So far as the prairie provinces are concerned, because we are not on the same footing as the rest of the provinces which have had their resources from which they have received great revenues, we ask as an act of justice that the prairie provinces should be granted the aid necessary to provide for the construction of roads and for technical education.
Mr. ,T. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre): I should like to add a word of protest in regard to the attitude of the Minister
454	COMMONS
National Highways-Mr. Woodsworth
of Finance towards the British North America Act. He objected to it having been trotted out. I am sorry he is behind the curtains, but he can hear what I have to say. His speech was a splendid example of the way in which the British North America Act is being used almost daily in this house. He spoke of the constitutional responsibility of this government and went on to say that they were responsible for the air routes. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance to name the clause in the British North America Act which gives the Dominion parliament control over the air routes.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend had listened to me he would have heard that we have a constitutional responsibility with respect to mail, and that air mail is the backbone of air transportation. That is the very phrase I used.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I heard that. We have a responsibility with regard to mails, but we have no responsibility at all with regard to air transportation. One of these days mail may be carried largely by truck, I suppose. The trucks will have to be run over highways, and when that is done, for the life of me I do not know how truck-carried mail is less a federal responsibility than air mail.


Charles Avery Dunning: I may point out to my hon. friend that to-day mails do travel in that way, and they are subsidized by the Dominion because it is a Dominion rseponsibility.


James Shaver Woodsworth: How can they travel unless there are roads upon which they may run? How can they operate in bad weather unless there are hard surfaced roads? The minister cannot avoid the question in that way. The fact is that there is no provision whatsoever in the British North America Act in regard to air communication; there is not one word that says the Dominion government is responsible for air communication. I think it natural that we should assume such to be the case, but it is not in the British North America Act. Further than that, the automobile had not been invented when the British North America Act was drawn up, and the ordinary means of rapid communication between provinces at that time was either by steamship or railway line. Naturally those methods of communication which were not merely local in character, but which connected province with province and had communication with other parts of the world, were to be under Dominion jurisdiction.
I think that is very clear, if you read the British North America Act itself. Take for 'W Woodsworth.]
example subsection 10 of clause 92, which defines the work of the provincial legislatures. The clause reads:
Local works and undertakings other than such as are of the following classes:
(a) Lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs, and other works and undertakings connecting the province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of the province.
The very idea there was that if there were means of communication between the provinces or extending beyond the provinces to any other country, they should be under federal jurisdiction. It seems to me that Since we are now using automobiles, more or less, instead of and in competition with the railways, when automobile roads run between the provinces, or come up from the United States to carry tourist traffic, as we have been told to-day, essentially those roads are not local or provincial in character, but they affect the welfare of the whole Dominion. I do not think it is an extravagant proposal that the Dominion should make some provision for helping out the provinces in matters of this kind. However I am not speaking so much in support of the resolution itself as I am protesting against the use of the British North America Act which w'as made once more tonight, as it is being made every day, absolutely ignoring the circumstances under which the British North America Act was drafted and presuming that we to-day are not ourselves to adopt those measures which are so sorely needed to meet the needs of the present day.


Hon. W. A. BLACK (Halifax):: In looking at this resolution I find that it is somewhat general, but following the discussion to-day it would seem that a very great deal of attention had been paid to a national highway across Canada. I think the discussion has centered largely upon that point. Probably the intention of the resolution was not so much that alone as that a grant should be given to each of the provinces. So far as a national highway is concerned, I am in favour of it; I feel that we in the east, and our friends in the west, should not be compelled to take off our hats to the officials of a foreign country in order that we may get from one side of our country to the other. The assistance which was given formerly to the provinces by this government, especially to the smaller provinces in the eastern part of our Dominion, was of great help to them. Those provinces have not the same resources and the same means of increasing revenue as have the central and larger provinces, and so far as Nova Scotia is concerned the burden placed upon

National Highways-Mr. Black (Halifax)
that province with its limited revenue is almost staggering. As the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) has stated to-night, one-half of the revenue of that province is applied to roads. That is a very severe tax and one which curtails allotment and assistance to very important matters within the province. For instance, education, technical and otherwise; health; hospitals, general and special, all require assistance and it is not within the power of the provincial government to fulfil the needs of those various institutions. There are many other things which are in the public interest and which should be helped and supported, but there is not sufficient revenue with which to do it.
The Minister of Highways in Nova Scotia has stated that during the.next twenty years the expenditure in connection with the provincial highways would probably reach the huge sum of $90,000,000. That would mean about $4,500,000 annually for upkeep, an amount which I do not think the province of Nova Scotia can expend. Our trunk roads possibly may be maintained in the state of efficiency in which they now are, but no money will be available for the by-roads or secondary roads and no progress will be made in putting them in such shape as present day conditions warrant. I think it was the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) who complained that we have made no suggestions as to how this money should be divided and how it shall be expended, and so on; it is up to the government to present its proposal which in due and proper time can be fully discussed.
I will add only that I intend to support this resolution with the hope that a generous al- [DOT] lotment may be given to Nova Scotia and to the maritime provinces.


Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Mr. Speaker, this resolution is
similar to the one brought before the house last year. At that time I had some reasons for opposing the resolution, and nothing has happened to cause me to change my mind in that regard.
When matters like this come before parliament we must find out if we have the power to act, then if according to the constitution of this country this parliament has a right to act, it can do so. Section 92 of the British North America Act, which deals with the exclusive powers of the provincial legislatures, reads as follows:
In each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,-
8.	Municipal institutions in the province.
The provincial acts relating to roads and highways are almost identical in each of the provinces. There are local and county roads, which come under the jurisdiction of the local and county municipalities. Within the past few years that policy has been changed by some legislatures so that the province itself may take care of some of the highways previously under the control of the local or county authorities. That change was rightly made, because according to the constitution of this country the matter was within the jurisdiction of the province. The province could have the control of the different roads placed under whatever jurfsdiction they wished, provided it dealt with provincial roads only. As has been so ably explained by other hon. members during the course of this debate, the first step taken by this government in this direction was in 1919, long after confederation, when it was desired to give some work to the veterans who had just been discharged from the army.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is not within the scope of this House of Commons or of this parliament to deal with the matter suggested by the proposer of this resolution (Mr. Kellner). I believe that if parliament took the step suggested by the hon. member, such a step would be unconstitutional, we would have no right to take it, because the constitution which gives us the powers we have does not grant the power to do what is required or suggested by the resolution. It would be a very desirable thing indeed to have an interprovincial or national highway running from Halifax to Vancouver, but it should be done by those empowered by the law to do it.
It is very easy to travel by highway through Canada from Winnipeg to Vancouver and from Port Arthur to Halifax. The only portion at present unbuilt is the lake Superior section, comprising about 600 miles in northern Ontario. I believe the best policy for road construction is to build roads where there are people living. This is a long stretch of rocky, mountainous country, where no one lives. It would take an enormous sum of money to build a highway through that country, and it would be very upleasant to motor such a long distance without any hotel accommodation.
I believe, also, as the hon. member for As-siniboia (Mr. McKenzie) has said, the provinces at present have better revenues than they had formerly. For instance, Your Honour knows that in some provinces the gasoline tax is fairly high. In some provinces the tax on automobile licenses is fairly high. In some provinces liquor is not sold very cheaply.

National Highways-Mr. Pouliot
It is a good thing to sell liquor, because it is a great source of revenue for the provinces, and that money can be used for the public benefit especially by building roads. That is the policy which was followed in Quebec by Mr. Perron when he was minister of roads. He very boldly imposed his policy upon the government to which he belonged, and I believe it was a success. Some years ago, for instance, the farmers complained of the bad state of the roads. Indeed the roads were bad, and in some parts of the country it was very hard to motor even in the month of May. The roads were very muddy and full of holes. But now they have been improved on the basis of fifty per cent lent by the government to the municipalities, and after the roads were improved they were taken over by the provincial government. That is the new policy to which I have just referred. In some parts of Quebec the roads are taken care of by the provincial government, as the burden has proven too great for the municipalities, and Mr. Perron, who was then minister of roads, should be congratulated on this policy. I do not know whether the same policy is followed in the other provinces; I speak only of what I know and I believe this is a very wise policy.
I would not be surprised, if we vote in favour of the resolution at present under discussion, that the provinces complain that the federal government is infringing on provincial rights. The leaders of some provinces are very touchy on that point.


Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond):: Tasche-reau.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend is just
repeating the word that was uttered when last year I asked my hon. friends who was the greatest man in the Conservative party. The same name was repeated by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) when he paid a very nice compliment to the Premier of Quebec by saying that he was the greatest Liberal-Conservative in Canada. At that time he overlooked the fact that the hon. member for Richmond-West Cape Breton was sitting behind him.
It is rather dangerous to deal with such a delicate matter as this. I believe there is in the constitution nothing that empowers the federal parliament to approve such a resolution. Moreover, if parliament votes in favour of such a resolution, many provinces may complain that the federal government is infringing on provincial rights.
fMr. Pouliot.]


Mr. ALFRED SPEARMAN (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fervid eloquence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) and his somewhat bombastic criticisms of some of the members, it requires no little courage to rise at this time in support of the resolution, but I should like for a moment just to scan the arguments put forward by the minister in opposition to the resolution itself.
In the first place-and I am taking them perhaps in order of priority of importance -naturally the argument is raised that it is contrary to the terms and provisions of the British North America Act. I have been looking over those provisions with some care since the commencement of the debate, and I can find in the British North America Act nothing which specifically places highways under the sole jurisdiction of the provinces. It states that projects of a municipal character are solely under the jurisdiction of the provinces, but it does not exactly classify those subjects nor does it definitely state what might be contained within the limits of those subjects. On the other hand, in discussing the powers of the federal parliament it states that lines of steam or other ships, railways and other works of a character affecting the interests of the community as between one province and another or between one province and other provinces, shall come under the jurisdiction of the federal parliament. I would be inclined to say that the weight of evidence may be fairly well divided, and that we could consider a highway of the class we are now discussing as one of those works which approach in character steamship lines and railway lines and would become works of such a nature as to bring about communication between one province and another, rather than limit them solely to objects of municipal concern.
I was, however, struck by one statement of the minister which I felt was hardly accurate;
I mean it was hardly an accurate interpretation of the act itself. The Minister of Finance informed us that the field of taxation as between the federal and provincial authorities was strictly delimited, each having its own responsibility within its own field. I might call his attention to this fact, that while it is true that the field of taxation which may be explored by the provincial authorities is strictly delimited, no such limitation is placed upon the field of taxation at the disposal of the federal parliament. The federal parliament is given full scope. Every means of taxation which the imagination of man may devise is at the disposal of the federal parliament and for such purposes as it chooses to use

National Highways-Mr. Speakman
the money. So I would say that the minister hardly gave a complete or accurate definition as to the taxing powers of the two bodies.
I come to another point, to a very fair question indeed as raised by the Minister of Finance. He said, and with some justice, that speakers from various parts of this side of the house had given the impression at least that their interpretation of this resolution varied in many particulars, and he instanced three distinct propositions which we appeared to have in mind in discussing this resolution. One was the filling up of comparatively insignificant gaps between the existing highways. Another suggestion was that some of us had in mind the building of an entirely new trans-Canada highway, probably a hardsurfaced road that would be available in all weathers. The third suggestion was that some of us were asking the federal parliament to make grants to the provinces for the purpose, among others, of constructing marketing roads, and the minister invited us to interpret the resolution.
It is, of course, impossible for me to give the interpretation of this resolution as it exists in the minds of various members of the house. I can, however, give the very definite interpretation which I myself attach to the resolution. I have in mind something like this: that the federal parliament should make certain money grants to the provinces, under which the provinces would construct highways under terms and specifications as outlined by this house

I refer to the provisions of the Highways Act of 1919. In order to come within the terms of that act, the highways had to be constructed according to specifications outlined by the federal road engineer. I had in mind that the same provisions might be embodied here: that the highways constructed by the aid of the federal grant should come up to certain engineering specifications and should be so devised and so located as to form ultimately a part of a national highway system. I believe that if the grants were made with these .provisions attached, we should find ourselves in a few years in possession of that towards which we are all aiming-a complete trans-Canada highway entirely within the boundaries of our country, each provincial unit forming a definite link with the next provincial unit, so that the whole would make a complete national highway system.
The further suggestion was made that some of us desired federal grants for the purpose of constructing marketing roads. That, to my mind, is not the purpose either of the resolution or of those members who support it. We
have this in mind, however, that if assistance was given by way of a federal grant towards the construction of main highways, it would leave the provinces in a position where they could themselves properly take care of the marketing roads. Indirectly in that way, perhaps. the marketing roads might be assisted, but it would only be indirectly, and it would leave the entire responsibility of providing marketing roads to the provinces and to the municipalities, where, to my mind, this responsibility belongs.
I simply wished to bring before the house these two or three considerations. First, that constitutionally, as I interpret the British North America Act., there is no definite prohibition of the federal government's building a highway. On the contrary, highways as we know them to-day, in the light of modern conditions, would more nearly approach that class of subjects which are definitely committed to the jurisdiction of the federal rather than the provincial authority, because as we view highways to-day they do form, in essence, a means of communication as between one province and another, and as between the several provinces.
The second thought which I had in mind-
I am repeating this merely for emphasis and clarity-was that owing to the fact that the federal government has the definite authority to explore and utilize any and every means of taxation so long as any such means is not definitely prohibited, some responsibility should rest upon the federal parliament to expend for the general good of this country the money so raised.
I have listened to the arguments pro and con, and having in mind my own interpretation of this resolution, and the importance of the subject to the people of Canada-yes, having in mind the valuable nature of the work done under the provisions of the Highways Act of 1919-1 am heartily in support of an extension of that assistance to be carried out somewhat in the direction I have indicated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The resolution now before the house involves a principle that is not new. Prio: to coming into power in 1911, Mr. Borden, now Sir Robert, promised the people of this country that if the Conservative party attained power he would provide a measure of support for provincial highways. Elected in 1911, at the first session afterwards, in 1912, he introduced his measure. The then Minister of Railways and Canals, Mr. Cochrane, introduced the bill into the House of Commons. When the bill was read the second time, the
458	COMMONS
National Highways-Mr. Bennett
then leader of the opposition, the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, raised a point of order as to the constitutionality of the proposed measure. The point of order was overruled by the Speaker, and the leader of the opposition then made a speech with reference to the bill itself. The bill embodied principles which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) tonight says were admirable, but which the Liberal party of that day thought objectionable. The measure as introduced provided that more money relatively might be paid to one province than to another because its necessities .might, be greater. That provision did not meet with the approval of the Liberal party of that day, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier moved an amendment which will be found in Hansard of February 23, 1912, on page 3643, and reads as follows:
That the bill be not now read, but that it be resolved that while the house is favourable to the granting of federal assistance towards the construction of permanent roads it is of the opinion that such aid should be given to the governments of the provinces for such purposes, and should be granted on a fixed basis similar to that now prescribed by the British North America Act and amendments thereto for subsidies to the provinces.
In the course of his remarks, Sir Wilfrid Laurier used these words which will be found in Hansard on page 3642:
We on this side of the house have no exception to take to this new departure for the purpose of aiding in the construction of highways out of the federal treasury.
New times, new men.
T'lis hiis not been the practice hitherto, but in the affluent condition of the treasury to-day, it may not perhaps be unwise that we should apply money in that direction. Moreover, the demand for highways is to-day more acute than it ever was before, and if it is intended to build new highways of a certain standard and to assist the various provinces in that respect, for my part I see no objection. The only exception I have to take to this bill is that any such exception should be made upon some rule provider! for in the bill, and should not oe left to the whim or caprice or favour of he government of the day. If this bill passes n its present form, any appropriations for ;his purpose can be devoted to one or two or three provinces, according as the ministry of the day may determine. In a matter of this kind there should be a principle of equity and equality applied as between provinces. What is to be the line that is to determine how the money shall be expended?
Then after discussing that he says:
Now, what shall that principle be? For my part. I submit that the only principle for the expenditure of such money is the principle to be found in the British North America Act, which in section 118 provides that the moneys paid out of the treasury to the various provinces shall be according to population. This 
provision was amended subsequently, complaint having been made that the allowances to the provinces were based simply upon the census of 1861. There were several conferences of the provinces, first in Quebec and then in Ottawa, commencing in 1887, all protesting that the allowances made to the provinces were not made on the principle of population, but on the population as it was in 1861.
He closed by saying that the basis of population was the sound basis on which grants should be made. You will therefore observe that Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1912 was wholly in accord with the principle enunciated by Sir Robert Borden and his government that aid should be given by the Dominion to the provinces for the construction of highways, and he moved his amendment by asserting that the house as a whole was favourable to that view. Before I leave that, may I say that the measure passed the House of Commons; it was amended in the Senate; the House of Commons did not agree with the amendment and repassed its measure, except for some trifling verbal amendments; and the result was the measure was not enacted.
It was contended that the distribution of the moneys should be made according to the population of the provinces, and in the Senate that was affirmed by a majority, it being contended that to permit the ministry of the day, or the governor in council, which is the ministry under another name, to make appropriations out of a sum granted for highways, would be to place a powerful weaipon in the hands of the government which could be used for purely political purposes. The Senate reaffirmed that principle on two occasions, with the result that the legislation then introduced in the House of Commons and passed by the government of Sir Robert Borden did not become effective.
However, in 1919, when a Union government was in power, a measure was agreed to, and a resolution was introduced in the House of Commons. It will be found in the journals for 1919 at page 76, when notioe of motion was given by Doctor Reid, then Minister of Railways and Canals, and at page 92 the resolution came up for consideration and wa3 finally considered later. It will be seen there that notioe of it was first given on the 19th day of March, 1919. I need hardly remind the house that it was not until June that the present Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Crerar) resigned from the then administration. So that on the 19th day of March, 1919, the present Minister of Railways, being a member of that administration, was responsible for the introduction into the House of Commons of a resolution, which resolution provided for federal aid being given to pro-

National Highways-Mr. Bennett
vincial highways. It also provided that the distribution of that money should be in accordance with the population of the several provinces. To that extent it yielded entirely to the contentions made by the Liberal party in 1912, that is, affirmed the necessity of federal aid being given to provincial highways, and adopted, population as the basis for distribution, for reasons which were obvious. The measure then introduced provided for a grant of $20,000,000 to be expended in five years for the construction of highways in the provinces under terms and conditions that were to be settled between the federal and provincial administrations.
That grant of $20,000,000 was expended in the provinces on the basis of population, except that a fixed grant of $SO,000 per annum was paid to each of the provinces. In other words the sum of $400,000 became available in five years to every province in the confederation, small and large, for the purpose of improving the highways in the provinces, and the balance of the $20,000,000 was in the five year period divided amongst the provinces on the basis of population. That was wholly in accordance with the views expressed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1912, which I have just quoted, and which views are embodied in the terms of his amendment to which I have directed attention. In 1919, the resolution having been adopted, the measure was passed by the House of Commons and the Senate and became a part of the law of the country. It. will be found as chapter 54 of the statutes for that year, assented to on July 7, 1919.
It provides for the distribution, as I have said, of $80,000 to each province per annum and the allotment of the remainder to the governments of the provinces in proportion to the population of the provinces as shown by the last census. The conditions under which the payments were to be made, were settled by agreement between the governments, and regulations were prepared and reports made to parliament as to the expenditure of the moneys.
The five years have elapsed. The whole of the money has been expended, and there being no further necessity for grants to be made to provide employment for the soldiers who had returned from the war-although the figure given by the Minister of Railways as to the number to be demobilized in 1919 was larger than the fact-the question now is: shall we continue the grants made in 1919? That is, not continue them in the sense that there has been no break in the period of the grants being available for the provinces; but shall we continue the principle of making grants from the federal treasury to the provinces to enable them to construct, as Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, permanent roadways?
I am wholly in accord, Mr. Speaker, with the terms of the resolution, and I believe the principles which governed in 1912 and 1919 are principles that are as applicable to-day as they were then. The conditions under which highways are being constructed bring that construction, not without but wholly within the British North America Act, so far as the Dominion is concerned. My friend the minister has challenged not so much the competency of this parliament to grant moneys in any way that we may desire-


Charles Avery Dunning: Not at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He forgets perhaps what his leader said last session, that it was " a thoroughly vicious principle " to appropriate public moneys to the provinces that they might expend as indicated by parliament. He has now not challenged the constitutionality of it, but he has challenged it as an act which is unconstitutional so far as the demand for it is concerned, and which he says can only be made a matter of grace and favour. Yet what was said by my hon. friend the member for Winnipeg seems to me to have singular appropriateness. The province has complete control over local works and undertakings, but there is a class of works and undertakings over which the provincial legislature has no jurisdiction, and over which this parliament has sole and absolute control, namely, lines of steam and other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs and other works and undertakings connecting a province with any other province or provinces or extending beyond the limits of the province. In other words, each province, as a province, can deal only with its revenues for the purpose of constructing a highway to the boundary of that province, but if it was desired to assist-and I take it that all parties are agreed that it is desirable to assist-in the construction of an all-Canadian highway-that by way of illustration- within Canada from the east to the west, this parliament would not only have jurisdiction to make a grant for that purpose, but it would fall within the exception to the exclusive powers of the provinces, and come within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament. And, therefore, if it is desired that money should be expended for the purpose of linking the provinces one with the other, for the purpose of forming a continuous highway from one part of Canada to another, and we desire to subsidize it or in any way to assist, the granting of that subsidy is within the competence of this parliament, and consideration is given to it, just as consideration


Herbert Bealey Adshead: In that case there is no adverse balance of trade with the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are invisible balances the other way which my hon. friend from East Calgary (Mr. Adshead) has perhaps overlooked, and the total net balance may or may not be $250,000,000. I am not prepared to say within a few dollars or within a few millions, because in respect to that it has been found very difficult by the department of statistics to speak with any degree of certainty regarding the invisible items. We have interest to pay on obligations in the United States, some of them of a private character, and we have large operations on

National Highways-Mr. Bennett
the stock exchanges of New York and Chicago with respect to which it is very difficult to get accurate figures. So that the visible or invisible balance is something that is not easy to speak of with any degree of absolute accuracy. But I would like this house to realize-and I know sometimes we do not do it; in my own case I found it difficult to appreciate the fact-that the sum total of these small items paid by tourists amounted to the vast sum that I have just mentioned, representing, as I say, at least a quarter of a billion dollars. It meant money available to redress a trade balance that was visible and to that extent it became exceedingly valuable; it was one of the main factors in maintaining the Canadian dollar, and prevented it from falling at least below ninety-eight cents. As I said, I think it was a little lower than that in one of the border cites.
Under these circumstances, having regard to the fact that we must think of the maintenance of that enormous traffic, how can the provinces do it if one province maintains a poor road, another province a little better road, and the richer province a very fine road? When I was driving through the province of Quebec, I remember one of my companions explaining to me the good roads. He said: "Mr. Bennett, that is what you will call a whiskey road." I did not realize for the moment just what he meant, but what he conveyed to me was that the profits derived from the sale of intoxicants had been utilized for the purpose of maintaining the very splendid highway over which we were then passing.


Mr. JACOBS:: Does not that apply to
every other province except Prince Edward Island, where they have no motor cars?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I see that my hon. friend is behind the times both in his question and in the statement it contains. There are motor cars in Prince Edward Island, and I am going to use that as an illustration in a moment. In the second place, the motor traffic has not reached the same volume in other provinces as it has in the great province of Quebec where you have a city of over a million people.


Samuel William Jacobs: What about Ontario?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Ontario, perhaps, is comparable. Last year more than three times as many motor cars entered Ontario as entered the province of Quebec.


Samuel William Jacobs: Did they not use their
profits on liquor for the purpose of making good roads?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are not specifically appropriated for that purpose, and in British Columbia the distribution of a portion of the liquor profits is made to the municipalities, as my hon. friend knows.
I was just going to illustrate my own experience in Prince Edward Island. That province is a garden; the soil contains no gravel and the construction of roads there becomes almost impossible without the importation of material with which to build them. I recall that on a wet day in a motor car it was very difficult to keep to the road even with the aid of chains, because the wheels could not get a grip on the soil.


Samuel William Jacobs: It is hard for statesmen to keep their feet in Prince Edward Island, is it not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, but it is somewhat difficult for them to keep their seats in Prince Edward Island, as possibly some of the hon. members nearby will presently determine. I am casting no insinuation at ail upon the hon. gentleman who aits to the right of my hon. friend. That condition illustrates admirably the point I wish to make. I remember meeting in Summerside a gentleman from New York who was travelling with his family in bis motor car, and spoke to me of the beauties of Prince Edward Island, its beaches and magnificent natural bathing facilities. He also spoke of the difficulties of motoring. The cost of creating a road in that province is out of all relation to the cost of creating one in Nova Scotia. You can build a gravelsurfaced road in Nova Scotia, where there are nearby gravel pits, for a reasonable sum of money. My friends from Prince Edward Island will admit that to do so down there you have to bring material from New Brunswick or Nova Scotia at great cost, not only for transporting it across the dtraits but also for distributing it t.o the roads themselves. Where we have conditions such as those, and where we are inviting tourists not for the purpose of taking their money from them but with the idea of offering them something in the way of scenery and in the way of conditions they do not have at home, to say nothing of the refreshments that may be obtained under proper conditions-


Charles Avery Dunning: No, not in the island.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not in the same way. Under those conditions is it not reasonable and fair that this resolution should be adopted?
Some of the members from the western provinces will have an appreciation of what it
462	COMMONS
National Highways-Mr. Bennett
costs to build highways in their districts. For instance, in some parts of the province of Saskatchewan there is soil eight, ten or twelve feet deep without a sign of stone or gravel of any kind; it is an alluvial deposit. To build a road there is a most expensive undertaking.
It is because of these conditions, I take it, that this resolution is upon the order paper, and I believe that the money of this country can be devoted to no more productive end. I use the term "productive" in the largest and best sense of the term, as filling a great national purpose, the redressing of an adverse trade balance and the maintenance to some degree of the value of Canadian currency. I know of no factor more potent for that purpose at this moment than the tourist traffic, having regard to the trade conditions between United States and Canada. It is vital to the maintenance of that traffic that we should have these roads maintained with some degree of uniformity in the various provinces, and in my judgment that can be attained only if we adopt the principle which the Liberal party espoused in 1912 under the leadership of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, but which party alt that time interposed certain objections. Those objections were fully met in the legislation of 1919 and are embodied in the statute to which I alluded in the former part of my observations.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I support the motion before the house, with the utmost confidence that a measure of this kind will be and must be resorted to if we are to continue to offer facilities that will attract to this country a great asset, which plays so large a part in maintaining our currency at near par and in redressing the adverse trade balance between Canada and the United States.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: My hon. friend the leader of the opposition has just drawn our attention to the occasions upon which the Conservative party has brought forward, as one of its policies, the question of aid from the federal treasury to the provinces for highway purposes. My hon. friend mentioned that before 1911 Sir Robert Borden had stated that if he were returned to power he would ask that an appropriation be made from the federal treasury to the provinces for the purpose of aiding the construction of highways. A little later on in his address my hon. friend mentioned that in 1919 the Unionist government had made a similar proposal, or rather had introduced legislation for a similar purpose.

Perhaps I should remind my hon. friend, with respect to the year 1919, that at that time the Unionist government had ceased to exist as such and had become the Conservative party, out and out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar) was a member of it at that time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at that
time. What I wish to draw to my hon. friend's attention is the significant relationship in the matter of time of these proposals to a forthcoming general election, either actually in sight or anticipated. In the year 1911 Sir Robert Borden was in the thick of a general election, and it was at the time of that election that Sir Robert Borden made the statement that if he were returned to power he would ask for an appropriation from the federal treasury to be given to the provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was in 1910 he made the observation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, he was getting ready for the election, and through the election he continued to make that statement, just as my hon. friend, when his turn comes, will take advantage of a general election to make a similar pronouncement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And with similar results.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is quite clear from my hon. friend's remark that what he has in mind is the relationship of his proposal to a general election. That is the point I wish to bring out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not my proposal.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In 1910 Sir Robert Borden anticipated a general election, and made this proposal to the provinces in the expectation that it might help to gain for him some measure of support, at the expense of the federal treasury.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: He promised us our natural resources, too.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And made many other promises as well. My hon. friend said that after the election of 1911, when Sir Robert Borden was returned, he introduced a measure implementing his promises.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At the first session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, and I hope my hon. friend and the rest of the house realize it was the first session only, and not the second, the third or the fourth session. My hon. friend tells us that at the first session.

National Highways-Mr. Mackenzie King
he had the support of Sir Wilfrid Laurier as well. May I ask my hon. friend why, when Sir Robert Borden was assured of the support of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in the commons, he let the matter drop after the first session?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because the Senate was in the control of the Liberal party, the vote in the Senate being 29 to 9.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That was at the first session. Sir Robert well might have done what the present government has done; he might have reformed the Senate. However, it is quite apparent that after the first session Sir Robert felt to all intents and purposes he had implemented the promise he had given at the general election, and the road was smooth for some years. Sir Robert forgot about the aid from the federal treasury for highway purposes, from that time on.


James Arthurs: There was the war in
between.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The war did not come until 1914.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Senate was not reformed until 1918.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In 1919 we
see a similar performance. The Conservative government at that time, expecting that its life could not endure for very long, brought in a measure along the line of aid to the provinces from the federal treasury, for highway purposes. This was introduced in reality for no other purpose than to gain support at a general election. My hon. friend says "with the same results." May I say to him that perhaps his efforts at the moment in this direction will be ended with the same results as followed the measure of 1919.
We are coming to a time when hon. gentlemen opposite seem to think that another general election is looming up on the horizon,-


An hon. MEMBER:: We hope so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: - and they are becoming very anxious to have something more in the way of promises which they can make at the expense of the federal treasury. That is the significance of a number of the orations which we have heard this afternoon from the other side of the house.
These matters must all be considered in the light of conditions existing at the time. In 1911, when Sir Robert Borden came into office, the country was not under the heavy load of obligations which it has to bear to-day as a consequence of the great war which has since intervened. Since Sir Robert Borden
introduced his measure there has been added to the public debt of this country on war account alone something like $1,680,000,000, a debt entirely unforeseen at the time Sir Robert Borden sought to give aid to provinces from the federal treasury. In addition to that, obligations have been taken from the shoulders of the provinces with respect to their railway debts and assumed by the federal government. If we had not this great burden to bear, in the meeting of which we are not assisted at all by the provinces and which falls exclusively upon the federal treasury, we might afford to be generous in making grants from the federal treasury. But we have to be just before we are generous, and in being just our first obligation is to begin to pay off the vast sums of borrowed money which were used for the purpose of carrying on the war and at the same time seek to reduce the taxes of the people, so far as they are needed for federal expenditures. I think it is correct to say that for every dollar which will be spent this year for federal purposes, 43 cents of that amount, or 43 per cent, will be paid upon obligations which have arisen directly or indirectly out of the war, obligations which no previous government had to face; for every $100,000 paid out of the federal treasury, $43,000 will go towards the payment of such obligations; and for every $100,000,000 paid out of the federal treasury, $43,000,000 will go in that direction. Not one cent comes from any provincial treasury to assist the federal treasury in carrying that obligation. It has been pointed out this afternoon that not only have we assumed this vastly greater obligation as a consequence of the war, but there is every indication that that obligation will continue to increase rather than to lessen. The expenditure on account of pensions is certain to become larger year after year, and a bill has been introduced at this present session regarding war veterans' allowances, which will further increase the demands upon the federal treasury. The provinces are not going, to help us to meet those obligations. It would be as just and as reasonable for the federal parliament to make an appeal to the provinces to assist us in the payment of these war obligations, as it is for the provinces to-ask us to meet their obligations with respect to construction of highways, technical education, or any other matter. We do not do it. Why? Because we recognize that with respect to matters of administration certain duties have been very wisely assigned to the provinces while other duties have been assigned to the federal government, and in the long run probably less confusion will be met with, and more progress will be made by each
464	COMMONS
National Highways-Mr. Mackenzie King
government carrying on the the work which comes primarily within its particular jurisdiction. That is a principal which I feel should guide us in matters of this kind.
There is another obligation which has been assumed since the measure of 1919 was enacted, an obligation to assist the provinces in the matter of old age pensions. That contribution will amount to something like $3,000,000 this year, and is an obligation which did not exist at the time the highways bill was passed in 1919.
That leads me, Mr. Speaker, to make a further reference to the legislation of 1919. I think I spoke upon this matter last year, and speaking from memory at the moment I believe I cited at the time what was said by the Hon. Doctor Reid, who was then Minister of Railways and Canals and introduced the measure in this house. Doctor Reid pointed out that many men were returning from overseas who would not be able to find immediate employment and it would take some little time to re-establish them properly in civil life. He thought that it was important that there should be some public work upon which these men could be honourably employed for a considerable time, and it was upon that ground that an appeal was made to the house to assist the provinces in the matter of highway construction. A similar step was taken with respect to loans for housing purposes, and there were other purposes as well.
The second clause of the resolution reads:
And whereas in that year the Dominion government recognized its responsibility in this matter by a substantial grant, which grant is now exhausted;
May I say to the hon. member who has moved the resolution (Mr. Kellner) that the responsibility which was recognized at that time was not the responsibility which he sets forth in the premise of his resolution; it was not a responsibility with respect to highways, it was a responsibility to the men who had returned from overseas, it was a responsibility in the matter of helping to re-establish in civil life those who had served their country so nobly abroad.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One paragraph only is directed to that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps I should have quoted first the first clause of the resolution. It is as follows:
Whereas the need for establishment of highways is greater than in 1919;
I cannot agree with my hon. friend in that statement, for the simple reason that since the year 1919 there has been a very considerable

highway development, a very considerable expenditure made upon highways. We are provided to-day with highways to a much greater extent than in 1919. Something like $20,000,000 has been expended on highways since 1919 under the one measure to which reference has been made. The highways have been improved to that extent by federal aid, but that is only a part of the total expenditure which has been made by the different provinces. Our highways are in an infinitely better condition to-day than they were previously, and, as the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) pointed out this afternoon, there is to-day extending from coast to coast practically a great chain of highways which link this portion of the continent from sea to sea. There remain hiatuses here and there which, however, are being rapidly filled up. The most important, as has been pointed out this afternoon, is in a section of the province of Ontario. It has been said over and over again to-day during the debate that this .year Ontario has had the largest surplus in its history since confederation.


James Arthurs: Good government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not saying what the cause is, but I am citing the fact. This parliament, before it begins to meet its own obligations, is being asked today to give money out of the federal treasury for provincial purposes to a province that 'boasts tihat it has the largest surplus it has had since confederation. That is the feature to which we take strong exception in the proposal in the form in which it is now being presented.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Does the Prime Minister see no difference between provinces that have had their natural resources since 1867 and the prairie provinces that have not received theirs yet?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I must thank
my hon. friend for bringing up that point, because it reminds me of something of which I wish to speak. When my hon. friend (Mr. Adshead) was speaking a little while ago he mentioned the fact that the western provinces had not had their natural resources, whereas the older provinces had; but he did not tell us that they were receiving subsidies in lieu of resources and that to-day they are receiving in lieu of their resources subsidies which other provinces which have their resources are not receiving. My hon. friend may not be aware of that fact but it is a fact. To a certain extent, all of the provinces are receiving subsidies from the federal treasury, but the provinces that have not their natural

National Highways

Mr. Mackenzie King
resources are receiving in addition subsidies in lieu thereof, so that they have right along been getting money from the federal treasury to assist them in matters of the very kind we are discussing.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: According to population.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not
worrying about population at the moment, but I think that is the case. Let me come to the other point which my hon. friend has also stressed, namely, the importance of keeping the country united from coast to coast. A highway may help to unite a country; it would certainly be an outward and visible sign; but as far as the union of provinces by means of transportation facilities is concerned, we have already on this continent the two finest railway systems in the world, and if means of transportation help to unite the different provinces they are being united by that method more effectively in this country than are provinces or states in any other country in the world.
But something more important than means of transportation, it seems to me is required, if we are to keep the country united. The real bond of union is the removal of all grievances between provinces and the federal government. The real bond of union is a bond of harmony and good will as between the different provinces and the federal administration, and in this regard great progress has been made by the present administration. When we came into office we found an unsettled condition in this country, a condition of unrest in all parts of it, a condition of unrest in the maritimes, in western Canada, in British Columbia, and arising in each case more or less out of some relationship between the provinces and the Dominion which it had been found impossible to have properly adjusted under previous administrations. We set to work to see what we could do in the way of removing those conditions which were straining the relations between the provinces and the Dominion.
In the case of the maritime provinces we had the matter investigated by a commission and we have acted upon its report. In connection with that report we have given to the maritime provinces increased subsidies which they are receiving to-day, additional money out of the federal treasury to assist them in meeting just such obligations as the matter of their highways and roads. We have done that already.
When we come to the western provinces, we have dealt with the question of the return to them of their natural resources, and we have dealt with that problem on a very 2419-30
liberal basis. We have made with Manitoba and Alberta agreements which have been presented to parliament. We have concluded also an agreement, not yet signed, with Saskatchewan. As between the Dominion and that province there remain some legal questions still to be agreed upon which are to be referred to the courts for a decision, but apart from that there has been reached with Saskatchewan an agreement very similar in terms to that which has been reached with Alberta. Therefore as regards the three western provinces we have reason to expect that before the present session of parliament expires, their natural resources will be returned to them, or rather, will be returned as soon as implementing legislation can be passed by the Imperial parliament.
In this connection may I say that while we are returning to the provinces their resources, we are doing more than that: we are agreeing to continue to those provinces the subsidies which were given to them in lieu of lands. We are going further even than that: we are agreeing to continue to the provinces the increased amounts which under the existing act they will become entitled to as the population of each increases. These all constituted extra demands upon the federal treasury. The federal treasury is giving up some of the sources of revenue which it has to-day and handing them over to the provinces. It is at the same time increasing the subsidies which it is giving to the provinces to carry on work of their own concern.
In British Columbia we are returning lands which for some time past that province has asked the federal government to return; I refer to land in the railway belt and in the Peace River block. These we are giving back and we are also continuing to British Columbia a subsidy to which she would not be entitled excepting for what we hope will be the action of parliament before the present session is over. Therefore I may say the condition with respect to grants from the federal treasury to the provinces has changed materially since this matter was under discussion before. We have assumed new federal obligations and we have renounced, or rather transferred to the provinces, certain sources of revenue and resources which from now on will serve their interests and should enable them to take on additional burdens in a way in which they have not been able to assume them before.
May I say just this one further word in conclusion? We have no desire in any way to do other than assume our full share of obligation with respect to any of these matters which relate alike in part to the Dominion

466	COMMONS
National Highways-Mr. Mackenzie King
and the provinces. As the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) has said this afternoon, we have an obligation with respect to building highways in the national parks of this country. In the national parks of the west the obligation is a very heavy, a very onerous one. We have assumed it at considerable expenditure. We are improving the highway system there. That is a federal obligation, and we are prepared to meet it. We feel that the provinces within their own areas, with respect to their roads, should be equally prepared to assume their own obligations.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) referred to a phrase which I used last year in describing a certain system, a system of raising money by one government and having that money spent by some other government. I described that particular system as to my mind being a vicious system. I am glad my hon. friend to-night was careful not to go beyond his reference to the system as such, because I noticed that in some of his remarks on the public platform, and certainly in the remarks of many of his followers, my hon. friends have gone very much further in their representations than they are prepared to go in this house or can honestly go in any place or at any time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I correct the right
hon. gentleman? On every occasion that I have referred to it, I have read from Hansard what my right hon. friend said, together with the interruptions of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) and myself, and my right hon. friend's answers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but my
hon. friend has linked up with these questions the representations of parts of his own speech and has left or has sought to leave on the minds of the people an impression concerning my statement which is wholly erroneous. I do not, however, want to argue at the moment concerning what he has been saying; I simply wish to make clear what I said and I hope that will be sufficient to avoid further misrepresentation. The misrepresentation of which I complain is that these hon. gentlemen opposite have sought to have it appear that I have been opposed to technical education, to the construction of highways, to unemployment relief and to those other provincial matters which in the past have been assisted by means of public funds from the federal treasury. Nothing could be further from the truth. The one other project I was trying to think of, perhaps the most important, was old age pensions. They have alleged that I was opposed to
rMr. Mackenzie King.]
old age pensions because, under the present arrangement they are paid in part out of grants from the federal treasury to the different provinces. I am not opposed to old age pensions. I have been foremost as one of the advocates of old age pensions from the very beginning, and I am proud to say that it is the government I lead which brought in the first measure of old age pensions in this country.
I am not opposed to technical education. I was the one who, as Minister of Labour, first brought into this house a resolution for the appointment of a royal commission to study the whole question of technical education, which commission made a recommendation that there should be a grant from the federal treasury to the provinces for a limited number of years, pending the time that it was necessary for the provinces to construct the buildings that were essential for technical school purposes and to enable the staffs of teachers to become duly qualified to undertake the work of teaching in technical schools. That was a measure brought in by a Liberal administration, and a measure of which I for one feel distinctly proud.
Similarly with regard to highways. I feel as strongly as any member of this house concerning the importance of highways and I would like to see a great transcontinental motor highway, but as long as we have to the fore certain obligations that can only be met by this government and will not be met by the provinces, we have to consider all such obligations first. As has been pointed out to-night, one of the most important of these obligations, one quite new, only recently to the fore, is the air mail service. I venture this prophecy here and now, that when we come to the appropriations for air mail service, hon. gentlemen opposite will be protesting that we are spending too much money for that service, and I will venture the further prophecy that when we get through these particular resolutions that demand additional grants from the federal treasury to the provinces, and begin to deal with the estimates which are now before the house, we will find exception being taken right along the line to expenditures which are all essential for federal purposes. When it comes to seeking to pass certain resolutions which involve extra payments from the public treasury to the provinces to meet their expenditure, hon. gentlemen opposite are united in their demands in that direction, but when it becomes necessary for us to seek the money to carry on the obligations of the federal government, hon. gentlemen opposite will be equally united in

National Highways-Mr. Mackenzie King
refusing to vote us the money that we need for that purpose. We have to face that situation. We know what we need for federal purposes, and we are determined to see that federal needs are supplied first. If, after federal needs are supplied, if after we have reduced some of the public debt and have reduced some of the taxation of the people of this country, we have money left that we do not know what to do with, with respect to any of our federal obligations, there will be time then to go into one or other of these numerous projects which hon. gentlemen opposite wish us to indulge in.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: You can spend more
money in Ottawa.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, that is
quite true, but may I ask my hon. friend this: Does he regard Ottawa as the capital of this Dominion? Is he proud of his capital, or is he not? Does he expect to get from any province any contribution towards expenditures on the capital?


James Dew Chaplin: I am not so proud of it
that I would tear down all the buildings in town to build new ones.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will find lots of supporters to go that length with him.
May I draw attention, Mr. Speaker, to the perspective in which these particular resolutions must be viewed by the house. If this were the only resolution before us asking for a grant from the federal treasury to the provinces there might be some reason for us to debate the matter at great length, but this is only one of a dozen resolutions all of which are very similar in character. We had the other day from the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) a resolution which is before a committee of the house at the present time, suggesting that we should set up a system of intermediate credits for agriculture. We had a night or two ago from the hon member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphaii), a request that out of the federal treasury we should establish international scholarships and a chair of international relations in the different universities in the several provinces. To-night we have a resolution asking us to grant money from the federal treasury towards the construction of highways in the provinces. Next but one on the order paper to this resolution is a resolution of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luchkovich), which we shall probably have discussed for a day in the house, asking us to make additional grants to the provinces for technical education. Then there is a resolution of the
hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cot-nam) asking that immediate action should be taken with respect to the nationalization of the supply of radium. This would mean, I suppose, that the federal government would be expected to supply the provincial hospitals at its own cost. There is a little further on a resolution from the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) asking for a more equitable arrangement of the collection and distribution of the general revenues, implying that we should give up some of the present sources of our revenue to the provinces, notwithstanding that we are being requested to make th^se different additional grants to them. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) has a resolution that it is a national necessity that immediately certain railway outlets should be built from the Peace river, also involving further additional expenditure. My hon. friend from Battle River (Mr. Spencer) has a resolution:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of making grants to the provinces equal to one-third the cost of establishing, and to cover permanently such full time health units as may be organized.
And so it goes-aid to municipalities and provinces in the relief of unemployment, and all the rest. These are only the beginning. Once these demands are met, I suppose that as many resolutions for yet other purposes will come upon the order paper.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not believe any government or any country could possible carry on without some definite understanding as to the scope of its obligations in the matter of expenditure, and the limitations to be placed upon them. The scope-that it seems to me wise at the moment to consider is the one which, very wisely, was laid down in that much-abused British North America Act, which assigns to the provinces certain obligations, and to the federal parliament certain other obligations. We will do well, I believe, in the interest of provinces and federal government alike, each to have regard to our respective jurisdictions, and not to venture too frequently beyond them in making contributions from one treasury to another in a manner never contemplated by the constitution of our land.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: I have listened with a good deal of interest to this debate, and I am verv glad indeed to notice that we have so many highwaymen in the house-I mean hon. gentlemen who are in favour of highways. I think that the house has a good deal of sympathy with some of the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Macken-

National Highways-Mr. Irvine
zie King). The government's task is a very difficult one indeed. They are on the treasury benches, and they are sitting there pretty tightly. They have to raise the money for all the expenditures of Canada. We appreciate that. We also are aware of the fact that we are in debt and that the government is charged with carrying on. We are prepared to remember all these things. The remarks of the Prime Minister, however, remind me of a parent who is unable to meet the demands of his children. One boy wants a pair of boots, another a pair of pants, another some toys. The father comes along and says, "We have to buy bread, and we have to pay the rent, so we cannot buy you boots and we cannot buy you pants. You will have to go without." We would say that that parent was not a good provider. The government says that it is in the position of having to take care of all the requirements of Canada as a whole, that it must look after the natural expansion of our industrial life, and at the same time pay off some of the country's debt, and therefore cannot assist in building highways. It should not be a very difficult thing for the country to find money for highways if all the prosperity talk that we have heard during the last two or three days be true. I would suggest to the Prime Minister that he dip into the prosperity can and take out enough to assist in building the highways as required by the resolution. I would suggest also to the Prime Minister that if we cannot pay our war debts and at the same time look after the natural expansion of Canada and attend to the interests of the people, then let the war debts go. I would rather let the war debts go unpaid than let the interests of the people go unattended to. If the Prime Minister will look at the number of people who pay income tax as compared with those who do not pay, he will get an idea of who is receiving the money that we have to provide for war debts. He will find that the many are paying the few. If we are going to devote the entire revenue of Canada to the payment of war debts, and neglect the building of roads and the other undertakings that he has mentioned, than I say it is in the interests of Canada to disregard war debts and look after the business of the people. I cannot charge the Prime Minister with creating those war debts, of course, but I believe they were unnecessary. Therefore I suggest to the Prime Minister that he use the credit of Canada in the coming years instead of permitting other people to use it, that he use directly by the power that he has, and not charge interest to the people of Canada for the use of their own 
credit; if he will do that he can easily get enough money to build this national highway in a very short time out of what he would save in interest.
The Prime Minister further said, after he had discussed the proposal of Sir Robert Borden-with which we are not particularly interested to-night, beyond pointing out that it was a very successful policy for the provinces; they all took advantage of it and liked it so well that they are asking for some more -after he had discussed that proposal he stated that it was a policy inaugurated by the Conservative administration. But in my opinion that is no reason why the Prime Minister should discount it at this time.
The Prime Minister also stated that this resolution comes from the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). It does not. It is a proposal made by an hon. gentleman in this corner of the house, and this is the second occasion on which it has been moved by him. The proposal has been endorsed by the organized farmers of the west and by many other organizations. It does not come from the leader of the opposition.
I think the Prime Minister is surely a little in error when he says that the Dominion government has the same right to expect the provinces to raise a part of the war debt as the provinces have to expect the Dominion to take some financial interest in the building of national highways. I do not believe that that statement is very fair to the provinces, and upon reflection I do not think the Prime Minister will repeat it. When he reflects that the Dominion government at the present time receives a very considerable revenue from the taxation of cars coming into this country I think he will realize that his government is standing in the way of the provincial governments obtaining revenue from car licences, gasoline taxes, and so forth; for he is aware that there are less than half as many cars in Canada as there are in the United States in proportion to population. I think it is fair to assume that if cars were as cheap in Canada as they are in the United States, as they would be if the tariff was abolished, our people would probably buy them in the same ratio as their neighbours to the south. If they did, the provincial governments would get a great deal more taxation from the augmented sale of gasoline due to the larger number of cars in operation, and consequently would be in a better position to carry on highway construction. So as a matter of fact this government is standing right in the way of the provincial governments carrying on this work.

National Highways-Mr. Kellner
Now, I think it has been demonstrated in the course of the debate that the need for highways was never greater than it is at the present time. I believe it has been shown also that to assist in highway building is an obligation of the Dominion government, an obligation that has already been assumed to some extent, and that being so the British North America Act goes by the board in this case and can no longer be allowed to stand in the way of the continuance of this aid. I think it was the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) who pointed out that the Dominion government already was doing a great deal towards the construction of these highways, after of course he had argued for some time that it was not the business of the Dominion government to do this work at all. He pointed out that the Dominon government had been doing and was going to do a good deal more in this regard by taking charge of the roads in the Dominion parks, and so forth. Well, would not it be monev well spent for the Dominion government to go still further with this expenditure so as to receive the full benefit from what they have been expending on the Dominion parks and what they have already expended under the previous arrangement? I think that would be good business for the Dominion.
One thing which has not been emphasized very much was brought out by the mover of the resolution. The unemployment situation in Canada is bad; it is even worse than the Prime Minister will admit, and apparently, it is worse than the Minister of Labour is aware of. In fact those hon. gentlemen were content to point out that employment in Canada had reached its highest point this year. But they did not take into consideration the number of young people, born in Canada who went to the labour market last year and found no opening, nor did they give us the extent to which unemployment has been increased by the extraordinary number of our young people coming into the labour market. As a matter of fact our unemployment situation is very serious. Now, here is a proposal which undoubtedly would be of great assistance at this time. We are passing through a period of depression. It may be a very brief period -I hope so-but if the government ever intends to make any expenditure along the lines of this resolution or similar lines, now is the time to do it to alleviate the unemployment situation; then when prosperity is real rather than imaginary we could slow down a little on the expenditure. I hope that the Prime Minister will vote for the resolution even though he has spoken somewhat against it.


Hewitt Bostock: Is the house ready for the question?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: I have to inform the house that when the mover of the resolution now speaks he will close the debate.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: The wording of the resolution is apparently unfortunate, because, judging by what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and some of his colleagues have said, I think 'that had it been worded a little more to their liking they would probably have adopted it. However, as far as that goes, I think the resolution is worth adopting even as it appears on the order paper.
There is one point with regard to which there seems to 'be confusion in connection with the 1919 legislation. The Prime Minister said the Canada Highways Act was introduced primarily to assist the Conservative party in the elections that were expected to come, and did come, very shortly after. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar) said the measure was introduced to assist unemployment. I have looked the matter up and it appears that neither of 'those hon. gentlemen is quite right. When the resolution was introduced in 1919 Doctor Reid said:
The resolution is important for this reason; we all know that for many years the government have been expending large amounts of money on railways and waterways, and we feel it is now necessary to expend money on our highways in order to provide proper transportation facilities for the public. A good deal has already been done Towards improving our highways, but much more must be done.
Later on he said:
The principal reason for it is not so much to give employment as that the work is of the utmost importance. and should, we think, be proceeded with in order to facilitate transportation.
So that the argument of Doctor Reid at that time was not on unemployment at all, it was assistance to highways.
The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) told how the federal government is at the present time spending considerable sums of money in the building of roads through the national parks. I do not know why that should be mentioned, because I am at a loss to understand who would spend money on those roads if the federal government did not do so. It would be going very far to suggest that the federal government should have the privilege of going into a province, marking out a park, setting it aside, and then asking

National Highways-Mr. Kellner
the provincial government to build a road through it. But, as a matter of fact, I do not think they are building all the roads through those parks. I am under the impression that in Jasper park at least the Canadian National Railways have spent a considerable sum of money on that road; therefore I do not think the federal government has built it in its entirety.
The argument was advanced that no reason had been given why the federal government should provide money for the building of this highway. I think a very good case has been made out to indicate that if they did make an expenditure of money on this highway the government in a very few years would not be out anything. Apart altogether from the economic standpoint, let us consider the expenditure from a national point of view. Reference has been made to the money now being spent in Ottawa, and reasons have been given why this should be made a city of beauty for the people of Canada. But let me point out that the person from western Canada who desires to come to Ottawa to view these beautiful buildings must, if travelling by motor car, go through the United States to get here, and that is not at all desirable from a national standpoint.
AVhen we take the vote in a few minutes, I have no doubt that the resolution will be defeated just as it was last year. My recollection is that when the Prime Minister was in the west he told the .people out there that if they wanted assistance badly enough it would be given. I am going by a report that I saw in the newspaper. The Prime Minister shakes his head, so I shall have to withdraw that. However, I am sure I am right when I say that there are many people in this country who do not desire the government to move along any line so much as they desire them to move along the line of highway assistance.


Robert James Manion: I was paired with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


William Anderson Black: I was paired with the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. King). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I was paired with the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Lavi-gueur). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. RYERSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Norfolk-Elgin (Mr. Taylor). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. RENNIE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MacLAREN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Robert Knowlton Smith: I was paired with the hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough (Mr. Duff). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. COWAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Allan). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BOIVIN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hoeken). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. RINFRET:: I was paired with the hon member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Queens):: I was paired with the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Jones). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Edwards). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Charles A. Stewart: I was paired with the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, March 11, 1930