1914-04-30

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

Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	How many tons of freight were carried by the Intercolonial railway during the year ending March 31, 1913, distinguishing between eastbound and westbound traffic?
2.	How many tons of the freight referred to in paragraph one, originated in the province of Nova Scotia, including all freight delivered to the said Intercolonial railway at the seaports of the said province?
3.	What was the gross amount received by said railway during said year for passenger traffic in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec, respectively?
4.	How many tons of the total freight carried by the Intercolonial railway during the said year originated in the provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick respectively?


Air. J. D. REID:: 1.	Number of tons of freight carried by the Intercolonial railway during the year ending March 31, 1913: Total eastbound, 2,182,084 tons; total westbound, 3,021,385 tons. Grand total, 5,203,469 tons.
2.	Number of tons of freight referred to in paragraph one, originating in the province of Nova Scotia, including all freight delivered to the said Intercolonial railway at the seaports of said province, total, 2,693,024 tons. Of this amount, 99,308 tons were delivered to the Intercolonial railway by steamship at Nova Scotia seaports for furtherance by rail.
3.	The gross amount received by the Intercolonial railway during the said year for tickets sold for passenger traffic in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Quebec, respectively, was as follows: Nova Scotia,

$1,128,640.07; New Brunswick, $670,343.47; Quebec, $844,783.09. Total, $2,643,766.63.
4.	The total number of tons of freight carried by the Intercolonial during the said year originating in the provinces of Quebec and New (Brunswick is as follows: Total number of tons originating in province of New Brunswick, 799,824 tons; total number of tons originating in province of Quebec, 1,088,406 tons.


ROYAL CANADIAN REGIMENT BAND.
*Mr. KYTE:: 1.	Who authorized the band of the Royal Canadian Regiment to take part in a demonstration in connection with a public meeting in the Province building, Halifax, on the evening of Wednesday, April 8, 1914?
2.	Who requested the services of the said band to take part in the demonstration?
3.	Was any payment made for the services of said band, and by whom was payment made?
4.	If payment has not been made, is there any charge made against any person in connection with such service?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:
1.	The officer commanding the Royal Canadian Regiment, under the provisions of paragraph 875, K. R. & O. (Canada), 1910, as amended by H.Q. 35-1-5, of 7th March, 1914.
2.	F. Pennington iBligh, Esq.
3.	No.
4.	A charge of $45 has been made against C. R. Hoben, Esq.


SHERBROOKE DRILL HALL.
Mr. McCREA:: 1.	From whom was the site for a drill hall in Sherbrooke, Que., North Ward, purchased, and at what price?
2.	Was the contract to build the drill hall let by tender??
3.	If so, what is the amount of each tender?
4.	Was the contract let to the lowest tenderer?
6. Was there any allowance for extra work?
If so, for what amount?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:
1.	F. O. Loomis; $10,000 for site and old court house building, which is intended for the armoury part.
2.	Yes.
3.	Loomis-Dakin, Limited, $28,600; Theo. Hally $42,214.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes; $6,810.


MELVILLE POST OFFICE.
Mr. MACNUTT:: 1.	Has the Government received any applications for a post office building for the town of Melville, Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, from whom and of what nature?
3.	If any such application or applications were incurred?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Melville Conservative Association, and others asking for a post office building.
3.	Communications acknowledged and referred to the Public Works Department.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY BRIDGE, LACHINE.
Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	Were any arrangements arrived at between the Government and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in connection with the passing of vehicles on the latter company's bridge between Caughnawaga and Lachine?
2.	Is the Government aware that during the last Chateauguay election the Conservatives who took part in such election are said to have stated to the electors of that county that that question was settled, and also that the plans have been published in the newspaper La Patrie, of Montreal, and distributed by thousands everywhere in the County during the election, showing in one of the plans the part added to the Lachine bridge and intended for vehicles?
3.	Has the Government made any agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to that effect? If so, what is the agreement?
4.	What will be the amount to be paid by the Canadian Government to the Canadian Pacific for such work?
5.	Is it the intention of the Government to place in the supplementary Estimates the necessary amount for the performance of this work?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	Not so far as the Department of Railways and Canals is concerned:
2,	3, 4 and 5. Answered by No. 1.


SPANISH SHIP BAY WHARF.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	On what date was work started on the public wharf at Spanish Ship bay, N.S.?
2.	Is the wharf completed?
3.	What is the value of the material at present on hand?
4.	If the work is being done by day work, who is foreman?
5.	What remuneration has been paid to the foreman ?
6.	If there were Other foreman employed, what is the name and remuneration of each?
7.	How much has been spent on the wharf up to this date?
8.	On what date does the department estimate this wharf will be completed?
9.	Who is the inspector and what remuneration has he received?
10.	If the wharf has not been completed, why not?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Only materials purchased, 1913.
2.	No.
3.	$625.
4.	Arthur McKinlay.

5.	$80 per month, amounting to $115.38.
6.	None either.
7.	$300 spent in fiscal year 1913-14.
8.	This depends on when appropriations are available.
9.	None.
10.	Could not be completed last year because timber could not be delivered in time and, vote then available was not sufficient.


HUDSON BAY RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION.
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	When did the party of men with horses, who left Le Pas for Port Nelson in January last, reach .Port Nelson?
2.	How many men were in the party when leaving Le Pas?
3.	How many of these men reached Port Nelson?
4.	How many horses were taken by the party from Le Pas?
5.	How many horses reached Port Nelson?
6.	Who was in charge of the party?


Mr. J. D. REID:: '
1.	April 9th.
2.	103.
3.	A number of these men left and returned to LePas; others left the employ of the
' department to engage with railway contractors, while men employed on railway *construction engaged with the department. 148 men went through to Port Nelson, and are now employed there.
4.	50: to haul supplies and outfit for roadmaking part.
5.	None. It was not intended that horses should go through to Nelson.
6.	J. F. Pratt.


DREDGING AT STE. ANNE DE RESTI-GOUCHE.
Mr. C. MARCIL:: 1.	How much has been expended to date in dredging at Ste. Anne de Restigouche, Quebec?
2.	Is the work completed?
3.	How much of the expenditure was incurred previous to September 21, 1911, and how much since?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	$19,805.36.
2.	The department has been requested to do further dredging.
3.	Since September 21, 1911, $17,589.12; previous to September 21, 1911, $2,207.24, at Champeau wharf and Mission Point.


SOUTHPORT PISH HATCHERY.
Mr. A. A. McLEAN:: 1.	Have any steps been taken to collect speckled trout eggs in Prince Edward Island for the propagation in the Kelly's pond, Southport hatchery?
[Mr. Rogers ;
2.	If so, in what years and with what success?
3.	What quantities and kinds of fry have been distributed from this hatchery each year since it was erected, and where placed?
4.	What distribution is expected this season?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	1907. No eggs collected. Parent fish were stolen from crates by unknown persons. 1911, 7,000 eggs collected; 1912, 134,000; 1913, 459,600.
3.
1906:	Morell river, 200,000 salmon fry;
Winter, 300,000; Wheatley, 100,000; Dunk, 100,000; Mores, 20,000.
1907: Morell river, 140,000 salmon fry; Midgell, 140,000; Fortune, 60,000; Murray, 60,000; Winter, 160,000; Black, 60,000; Wheatley, 60,000; Dunk, 80,000; North,
30.000.
1908: Coffin's pond, 12,500 grey trout fry; lake Verde, 12,500; Wisner's. pond, 12,500; Thompson's pond, 12,500; North lake, 30,000 salmon fry; Morell river, 200,000; Neufrage, 100,000; Fortune, 100,000; Murray, 80,000; Winter, 200,000; Wheatley, 60,000; North, 50,000; Dunk, 80,000.
1909:	Winter	river, 370,000 salmon fry;
Morell, 226,000; Dunk, 72,000; Beaton's Mills, 72,000; Fyne Valley, 72,000; Clyde river, 72,000; Wheatley, 72,000; Black, 72,000; Murray, 72,000; Midgell, 72,000.
1910:	Wright's stream, 10,000 speckled
trout fry; Gates, 10,000; Sentner's, 10,000; Crosby's, 10,000; Curtis', 10,000; Winter river, 432,000 salmon fry; Clyde, 72,000; North, 72,000; Black, 72,000; Dunk, 72,000; Murray, 72,000; Midgell, 72,000; Morell,
288.000.
1911:	Morell	river, 315,000 salmon fry;
Baker's, 252,000; Winter, 189,000; North, 189,000; Coleman, 63,000; Indian, 63,000; Dunk, 63,000; Murray, 63,000.
1912: Winter river, 4,000 speckled trout fry; Sherry's, 3,000; North, 216,000 salmon fry; Morell, 216,000; Winter, 216,000; Sherry's, 108,000; Dunk, 54,000; Tyne Valley, 54,000; Bray river, 54,000; Wheatley river, 54,000; Midgell, 54,000.
1913: Sherry's river, 5,000 speckled trout fry; Hardy's, 15,000; North, 30,000; Dunk, 14,000;	Morell,	30,000;	Winter,	14,000;Sherry's river, 72,000 salmon fry; North, 144,000;	Dunk,	72,000;	Morell,	216,000;Winter, 72,000; Indian, 72,000; Gurney's, 72,000;	Belle,	200,000;	Midgell,	72,000;
Wheatley, 72,000.
4.	Approximately 1,100,000 salmon and
400,000	speckled trout fry.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT AUTOMOBILE.
Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	Has the Post Office Department purchased a new automobile? If so, on what date?
2.	What was the price paid for said automobile?
3.	For what use has said automobile been purchased?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Yes; December 16, 1913.
2.	$4,950.
3.	For use at Ottawa in connection with the Post Office Department.


SS. CANADA.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: For what purpose did the Department of the Naval Service order the steamship Canada to Shelburne, N.:S., in August, 1913?


Mr. HAZEN:: C.G.S. Canada was authorized to proceed to Shelburne on the request of the captain of the ship, before taking up duties on the coast of Cape Breton.


LAND PATENTS.
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Has patent been issued for the W. j of section 1, township 60, range 5, west of the 5th meridian?
2.	Was patent issued in respect of South
African scrip entry?	,
3.	To whom was patent issued?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Has patent been issued for the S.E. \ of section 12, township 53, range 6, west of the 5th meridian?
2.	When was entry made?
3.	Who made entry?


Mr. ROCHE:: ,1. No.
2.	20th of February, 1913.
3.	Donald Smith.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY COAL CHUTES.
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Has Roberts and Schaefer of Chicago the contract for building coal chutes on the National Transcontinental?
2.	What is the price for piles delivered and driven?
3.	Is any of this work being done at O'Brien, the first divisional point east of Cochrane?
4.	If so, has it been sub-let? If so, to whom, and at what price?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$2.50 per lineal foot.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes. Structural steel to Dominion Bridge Company; electrical work to Canadian General Electric Company. The department has no knowledge of what price.


ROCKY POINT WHARF.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: 1.	Did the Government purchase a site for a wharf, and a right of way from Malcolm McKinnon of Rocky Point, near Charlottetown, P.E.I.?
2.	If so, when was said purchase made, and what price was paid?
3.	Does the Government intend to build a wharf on this site? If not, why not?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	September, 1913, for $275.
3.	No; better accommodation can be secured at the site of the present provincial ferry wharf near the harbour mouth.


ST. JEROME WHARF.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. LEMIEUX:
1.	To whom was the contract awarded for the stone for the wharf at St. Jerome, county of Chicoutimi?
2.	What is the amount of the contract?
3.	What quantity of stone has been supplied so far?
Mr. ROGERS:: 1 and 2. No contract.
3.	Last year, stone was supplied to the value of $1,187.59.



QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. FISHER:: As a matter of privilege, I wish to draw the attention of the House to an article which appeared in the Toronto Globe of yesterday which among many others misstatements, contains the following :
In addition, there is a strong hydro-electric wing of the Government's support which is said to be bitterly hostile to aiding the Mackenzie interests while the hydro-electric project of Ontario, which Hon. Adam Beck has carried on from its inception against the active antagonism of what is called the ' Mackenzie electrical ring,' is given the go-by. This element is said to include Mr. Gordon Wilson, of Wentworth, Mr. Donald Sutherland, of South Oxford, Mr. William Smith, of South Ontario, Mr. W. A. Clarke, of North Wellington, and Mr. J. H. Fisher, of Brant.
I simply wish to say that, as far as I am concerned, there is not the slightest foundation foT that statement; it is absolutely untrue. I am only sorry, Mr. Speaker, that the rules of the House prevent me from characterizing this statement in the language which I would like

to use, and which I have already used outside the House.


Mr. J. A. M. ARMSTRONG:: Through the customary lack of veracity that so often characterizes the Toronto Globe, I' am placed in the same category with the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Fisher). I would like to read another paragraph in the article to which my hon. friend has already alluded:
Other members who tor the past few weeks have been prominent in well defined rumours connecting them with outspoken opposition to the deal are. Mr. Andrew Broder, of Dundas, who stated that he was not present at to-day's caucus, but had informed Premier Borden personally as to his position on the matter; Mr. Bernard Hepburn, of Prince Edward; Colonel J. A. Currie, of North Simcoe; Mr. F, N. Rhodes, of Cumberland, N.S. ; Mr. W. A. Boys, of South Simcoe; Mr. J. A. M. Armstrong, North York; Mr. J. A. Best, of Dufferin; Mr. A. C. Macdonell, South Toronto; Dr. M. Steele, South Perth; and Mr. H. J. Walker, of Northumberland.
The article is false on the face of it because it states that for the past few weeks these members have been outspoken in their criticism of the deal. Speaking for myself, I did not know what the deal would be until a few days ago, so this article is false like so many other articles appearing in the Toronto Globe. I wish to take this opportunity of characterizing that statement, so far as I am concerned, as a deliberate falsehood.


Mr. SMITH:: I wish to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the statement read from the Toronto Globe by the hon. member for Brant, in which my name is included. I may say that the Canadian Northern railway have no warmer friend either in this House or out of it than I have been. Everything in that statement is untrue.


Mr. WALKER:: I also wish to state that the article, so far as I am concerned, is entirely untrue; and I want it distinctly understood that I am entirely in accord with the stand the Government has taken in regard to the matter.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege in order to show how rapidly a falsehood can spread. I wish to read from the Daily Sentinel Review of Woodstock, published in the county in which I live, an article which is as follows:
Despatches from Ottawa this morning state that there is a strong hydro-electric ring of Conservative members opposed to the granting of $45,000,000 to Mackenzie and Mann interests

in the Canadian Northern railway. , These members are opposed on the ground that the hydro-electric radial plan was set aside by the Government while Mackenzie and Mann are being favoured. Among these members, so the despatches state, is Donald Sutherland, representative for South Oxford.
I wish to state, Mr. Speaker, that in so far as I am concerned there is no foundation for this despatch which they claim came from Ottawa. As has already been pointed out 'by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Fisher) and the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Smith), there is absolutely no ground for it in this instance, and I think it is an abuse of the privileges of the representatives of the press in this House that they will send out wilfully, deliberately, and of malice aforethought, despatches which they must know to- be false.


Mr. GERMAN:: Would the- hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Is the hon. gentleman in favour of the resolution on 'the Order Paper in connection with Mackenzie -and Mann?


Donald Sutherland: I will answer that at the proper time.


Mr. BEST:: In regard to the article from -yesterday's Globe read by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Fisher), wherein my name is used, I want to say that the statement in absolutely untrue. I never gave any reason to anybody, either directly or indirectly, which would justify the use of my name- in that article. I -did not know anything about what d-e-al was going to be made until it was brought up in the caucus and I am satisfied that the Government has made the very best deal they possibly could. I think that this article is on a par with the greater part of the articles that appear in the Globe.


Mr. RHODES:: With respect to the
article in the Toronto Globe as read by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Fisher) and the hon. member for North York (Mr. Armstrong), in so far as it mentions my name, I wish to borrow the adjective used by these hon. gentlemen in respect to that article and to say 'that it is absolutely false. Perhaps I might conclude by -saying that I believe these proposals are- as good as the Government could possibly have made, and they have my heartiest approval.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE TARIFF.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
['The information I have is that rolled hexagon iron or steel bars are not used for shafting.\nResolutions reported, read the first and the second time and concurred in.\nOn motion of Mr. White, the House adjourned at 11.33 p.m.\nFriday, May 1, 1914.']
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Before we proceed to the consideration of further items I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a question respecting items No. 208a and 210a which were passed last evening. What is the capital invested in the plant at Windsor, Ontario, which is now manufacturing chloride of lime and caustic soda ?


Mr. WHITE:: The information I have is that the value of the chemical plant is $750,000.
306. Marble, sawn or sand rubbed, not polished; granite, sawn; paving blocks of stone; flag stone and building stone, other than marble or granite, sawn on not more than two sides-British preferential, 15 per cent, intermediate, 20 per cent; general, 20 per cent.


Mr. OLIVER:: Is this an increase or a decrease ?


William Thomas White: This is somewhat an important item. I think my hon. friend will understand it better if I give a brief explanation as to this item and the two succeeding items. The rates fixed in respect to the articles mentioned in this item are the same as to British Preferen-tion and General as before. In other words: Rough stone and stone sawn on not more than two sides may be brought into Canada, when the new tariff goes into effect, at the same rate as before. The rates have been increased on building stone, under item 306a, other than marble or granite sawn on more than two sides but not sawn on more than four sides, and item 306b says:
306b. Building stone, other than marble or granite, planed, turned, cut or further manufactured than sawn on four sides.
We have increased the duty upon the more finished stone. On stone sawn only on two sides the rate is the same as before. On building stone sawn on two sides, but not sawn on more than four sides, the rate has been fixed at 10 cents Preferential, and 15 cents General per 100 pounds.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What would that be ad valorem ?


William Thomas White: It would vary. The cheapest stone is worth 55 cents per cubic foot, and some other stone will run as high as one dollar per cubic foot. A cubic foot weighs about 160 pounds. The increase in the tariff is on the more finished article. Stone sawn on more than two sides and finished, under item 306b, will run from 30 per cent to 40 per cent ad valorem,
the previous rates being twenty per cent British preference.


Mr. PARDEE:: I desire to speak on this item on account of certain information I have received respecting a public building in the town of Walkerville. I myself know nothing about the building. The minister, in discussing this item in his Budget speech, as reported in ' Hansard/ said:
There is very great difficulty in administering the tariff to-day on account of the difficulty in ascertaining the value of finished, dressed stone coming in as an import. The average ad valorem of the specific rate which I have quoted is 30 per cent upon turned, planed, cut or further finished stone. I propose a rate of 45 cents per 100 pounds, which is equal to 30 per cent ad valorem.
As I understand it, this is done in the interest of the stonecutters of the Dominion of Canada. There is a quarry very close to Canada, at Bedford, Indiana, from which a great deal of this stone is imported in the finished state into Canada for public buildings. It would cost little more to bring in this stone in the finished state and pay the duty on it at the old rate than it would to bring the rough stone in and have it cut here. The argument is that, if the Government desire to help the stonecutters of the Dominion, they should prohibit the importation of the harder kinds of stone of which there are a great many quarries in the Dominion, principally in New Brunswick. In the Dominion there are no quarries of the kind of stone.on which the minister proposes to increase the duty. In regard to the public building at Walkerville, my informant writes me as follows:
Herewith quotations covering all the stone for the Walkerville post office, f.o.b., Bedford, Indiana:
Alternate No. 1 includes the two courses for the foundation and step sides:-Stone, f.o.b., Bedford, price, $372; old duty, $74.20; new duty, $266.40; difference, $192.20.
Alternate No. 2 includes the steps:-Stone, f.o.b., Bedford, price, $187; old duty, $37.40 ; new duty, $133.65 ; difference, $96.25.
Alternate No. 3 includes the base course and copping on step walls:-Stone, f.o.b., Bedford, price, $457; old duty, $91.40 ; new duty, $327.60 ; difference, $266.20.
Alternate No. 4 includes all above the base course:-Stone, f.o.b., Bedford, price, $7,635 ; old duty, $1,727 ; new duty, $6,069.60 ; difference, $4,342.60
I am merely quoting this building as an instance where this stone is used, to show the difference that will be made in the price providing the change in the tariff brought down by the minister goes through. If these figures are correct-and my informant is a practical stone man who takes contracts for

this class of work in a great many places in Ontario-the minister will see that it is practically a prohibitive duty. From these figures and taking the facts as they stand, namely, that this stone can be procured in the way I have mentioned, and that there are many quarries of the harder stone in Canada, it appears to me that, if this duty were put on the hard stone and left off this * stone, it would be of more advantage to the stonecutters than the duty which the minister proposes to impose. We have an almost inexhaustible supply of granite at St. John, St. George, and other parts of the Dominion. If the duty on this cut stone were lowered to a reasonable amount and not made, as it is at present, absolutely prohibitive, the object for which the tariff is increased would be fairly well brought about.


William Thomas White: I am sorry that, on account of the noise that has prevailed in the House, I have been unable to follow my hon. friend as I should have liked, but I gather in a general way that he is arguing that this duty is prohibitive and that the price of finished stone will be greatly increased to the consumer in Canada. We have not increased the duty upon rough stone, or stone sawn on not more than two sides; that stone will come in, whether from the quarry in the United States that my hon. friend has in mind or .from other United States quarries, at the same rate as before. What 1 intend to accomplish by this increase is, that the stone so brought in shall as far as possible be cut and finished in Canada by Canadian stonecutters. This matter has been before the Government for many years, and no item in the tariff has been more persistently or more earnestly brought to my attention since I have been Minister of Finance than this item relating to cut stone. I have here so much material that I would not know how to use it all, and I would not think of putting even a fraction of it upon ' Hansard.' I have here, for example, a bundle of petitions with respect to this matter, signed by members of the Stonecutting and Quarry Trades of Canada and by builders' exchanges from' all parts of Canada. I will just read the endorsement upon this bundle of petitions, which bears the superscription of the Montreal Builders' Exchange :
We endorse the petition being presented by the Stonecutting and Quarry Trades of Canada. We desire to have the duty on all kinds of

building stone except rough quarry blocks placed on a properly protective basis in the interest of quarrymen, stonecutters and stone contractors throughout the Dominion of Canada, namely, 65 cents per cubic foot, to be measured at its extreme dimensions.
My hon. friend will observe that the tariff modifications which we propose do not go nearly so far as that; but the allied stone industry of Canada, that is, the stonemen- the stonecutters and the stone contractors- have asked the Government, not only once but repeatedly, to give them a reasonable degree of protection so that the men engaged in the stonecutting trade, who from time to time, especially in the winter, are out of work in Canada, shall have the opportunity of dressing and cutting the stone used in the erection of buildings in Canada. If the stone to which my hon. friend refers comes in in the rough or dressed on not more than two sides, there is no reason why the cost to the consumers, that is to say, the parties, firms, corporations, or municipalities, erecting buildings, should be more than the cost of the raw material plus the cost of the labour bestowed upon that by Canadian artisans. I do not see that it can be any more than that. I have received requests for the revision of the tariff in respect of this item from the Journeymen Stone Cutters' Association of America, from the following branches: St. Marc des Carrieres, Quebec; Quebec city, Montreal, St. Martin, Neilsonville, Terrebonne, Belanger Village, St. Michel, London, Ontario, Niagara Falls, Port Arthur, Ottawa, Kingston, Peterborough, Toronto, Winnipeg, St. Boniface, Tyndall, Calgary, Edmonton, Moosejaw, Regina, Vancouver and Victoria. Builders associations and builders exchanges in various places have also asked for this, putting it on the ground that they desire to have the opportunity of dressing and finishing the stone brought into Canada for use in the construction of our buildings. My own view is that if stone is brought in in the rough, the rate of duty being increased only on the dressed stone, the only increase that, could take place to the consumer would be the cost of the labour bestowed by Canadian artisans after it is brought in, and the legislation proposed, whether well designed or not, is to accomplish that object. It is in the interest of the artisans, the stonecutters of Canada, and indirectly, as I stated in the Budget, it will be of advantage to Canadian quarrymen. I desire to read for the information of the committee extracts from the petitions that have

been received by me from the various stonecutters associations I have mentioned.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: If the duty on rough stone is not to be increased where does the advantage to the quarrymen come in?


William Thomas White: The advantage will be an indirect advantage. It will make generally for the development of the stonecutting in (Canada. The quarry industry in Canada is not in a very satisfactory condition, nor is the stonecutting industry. My hon. friend seemed to doubt whether this legislation would be of any benefit to the stonecutter of Canada. I have a letter from the Journeymen Stonecutters' Association, signed by the secretary, and dated 24th of March, 1914, which is in part as follows:
I was instructed by the Stonecutters' Union to write in regard to tho stone tariff. We have no doubt that you have read the article in a recent issue of the Montreal Daily Mail in which it is stated that half the wealth of a nation is in its buildings. Uor a great many of the buildings mentioned in the article stone is brought from the United States ready to set though there was a large number of stonecutters around here looking for work. .We think that if the tariff was raised on cut stonev contractors would cut their stone in Canada instead of getting it from the United States and in that way employ Canadian stonecutters and other connected with stone.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: According to that letter, they hope that the stone will be cut in Canada. But the trouble is that the stone taken out at Bedford is in the rough, but it is allowed to be dressed there, they only pay freight on the dressed stone, and so they can get it to the point where it is to be used much cheaper.


William Thomas White: That is one of the very reasons for this legislation. The freight upon stone, whether rough or dressed, is according to its weight, and in the dressing the reduction of weight is considerable. The customs tariff hitherto has been uniform, being 20 per cent upon stone whether rough or dressed. If stone was brought into Canada in the rough, and a higher freight charge had to be paid than if it was brought in dressed, the result of the tariff, so far .as it was designed to benefit the stonecutting industry in Canada was completely nullified, because the difference in freight more than neutralized the tariff advantage which was evidently the design of Parliament to give under the item in question. There is no doubt about this in the minds of the stonecutters of Canada. If the hon. gentleman will look through the mass of petitions and 197
correspondence, extending over two or three years, that I have here, he can come to only one conclusion, and that is tfiat there is no doubt in the minds of the stonecutters that it would be of advantage to them. This legislation is brought down because it .is urged upon tne Government, and the Government desire to bring about a benefit to the stonecutting industry in Canada.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is it sound economy to do so?


William Thomas White: Absolutely, I believe. Why should not stone be cut in this country and dressed by Canadian workmen?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have never
given much consideration to the matter, but I should rather be inclined to believe that it would be of advantage to the country, and especially to the artisans and consumers, that -stone should be made as cheap as possible, and that therefore it should be on the free list.


William Thomas White: Dressed stone?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: All kinds of stone.


William Thomas White: Of course, it is open to my hon. friend to put forward that view. But the quarry owners of the country have a very different opinion. My hon. friend from West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) argues that this does not benefit the quarrymen of Canada. So, my hon. friend from West Lambton and my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) are evidently wide apart upon the question.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I simply asked how it benefits the quarrymen.


William Thomas White: Let me ask my hon. friend, would he be in favour of taking the duty off stone, having regard to the condition of the quarry industry in Canada?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I have not given consideration to1 that matter.


Mr. TURRIFF:: How about the interest of the consumer?


William Thomas White: We will come to that. The tariff has not been changed with regard to rough'stone or stone sawn on not more-than two sides. So, if the stone is cut in Canada by Canadian workmen, at reasonable rates, and if the stonecutting industry can thereby be developed I do not see how the consumer is disadvantaged. It seems to me a wise tariff policy to admit raw material in on the free list or at a low rate, and that the finishing of the raw material



into the manufactured product should, as far as possible, be done by Canadians. Now, this matter seems to be of considerable interest to my hon. friend from West Lamb-ton, and so I propose to read from the petitions we have received from the builders exchanges throughout Canada. The following representations appear in these petitions :
The statement given herewith constitutes the petition of stonecutting and quarry trade section of the Montreal Builders' Exchange. Our body desires to have the duty on all kinds of building stone, except rough quarry blocks, placed on a properly protected basis in the interests of quarrymen, stonecutters and stone contractors throughout the Dominion of Canada. Copies of this statement are now being signed from one end of the country to the other, and will be forwarded to you in due course before the meeting of Parliament.
The languishing industry for whose life we plead is that of the stone quarrymen, the stonecutters and the stone contractors of Canada. The Government statistics report that last year there were already more than sixty quarries in operation in the West alone. We who represent the capital invested in them know better than any one else under what immense difficulties they are kept alive-where they are not already practically closed-but these figures show the immense possibilities of this industry in a part of the country where industries are scarce; and these possibilities are of course quite as great-if not greater-in other provinces. Quarrying is an industry exceptionally localized and native. The very weight of the material handled should rivet it to the soil. That it does not do so in Canada, with its abundance of good stone, is proof positive thrjt we are suffering from an altogether unusual and unjust competition.
There was a time when Canada quarried her own stone and even invaded successfully the American market. In many of the great American cities there rise to-day monuments to these victories of the past. The finest buildings of that time were built with Canadian stone; and when the American owners desire even now to enlarge or alter them, they must still come to our quarries to get similar material. But the shrewd and ambitious Americans were very unwilling to be dependent upon a foreign country for their building material. So the McKinley tariff put a duty of 50 per cent on building stone, except marble, and 65 cents a cubic foot on marble, with a view to shutting out the Canadian product and creating an American stone industry.
That duty did its work. Protection protected. A great American stone industry grew up which now not only satisfies the immense American demand, but dominates the Canadian situation and is slowly grinding our stone industry to powder. Our protection against this highly protected and splendidly organized and well equipped foreign industry is only 20 per cent on the face of the tariff; and-as we shall show- is really very much less than that. The 20 per cent is the duty on all building stone, sawn or dressed, which the customs authorities rule covers practically all American manufactured stone imported. There is a duty of 35 per cent 
on manufactures of marble or granite, and of 30 per cent on manufactures of stone; but under the ruling of our Customs Department, these duties are almost wholly inoperative.
The reason for this is also one of the reasons why the new American industry is so successful. By modern methods stone is manufactured for shipment when it is sawn. The up-to-date diamond saws render it unnecessary to manufacture it any further. It is then ready for the building and comes in under the 20 per cent duty. So the Americans are able to send in their manufactured stone under the description ' sawn ' and escape with no more than a duty of 20 per cent. This 20 per cent, however, is levied upon their invoices-not upon the prices with which we must compete. They have an adroit system of bookkeeping by which they show that various other charges than the value of the stone are incorporated in the price they charge in Canada-as, for example, freight, cartage, insurance, etc. These items are taken from the total and' they pay duty only on what they will admit is the quarry value of their stone. The result is that they are 'dumping' most flagrantly all the time.
And this whole question is a subject which deeply concerns Canadian labour. Formerly we had the best quarrymen and stonecutters on the continent. When the McKinley tariff drew our industry over to the United States, our workmen followed it. We would lijte to get them back. But they will not come back until we can offer them permanent employment and we can only do this when we are assured of our own market. We shall be compelled to pay them higher wages than they get in the United States, as the climatic conditions there permit of more continuous work during the winter months.
I desire to read the concluding paragraphs of this petition, which was signed, as I say, by the stonecutters' and builders' exchanges in all parts of Canada:
As we have intimated before, we are satisfied that no system of ad valorem duties will adequately protect our industry. Our foreign competitors are too fertile in devising means to avoid the intended effect of such duties. They have already succeeded in nullifying the plain intention of the Canadian Parliament by making our 30 and 35 per cent duties inoperative; and they have gone very much further, and, by a system of manipulated invoices, greatly reduced the effect of even the 20 per cent duty they nominally pay. Hence we are in favour of establishing a duty which will not be a high percentage on the proper and honest value of the article in question, but which will prevent misunderstanding and fraud. This should be a specific duty; and we should suggest a specific tariff of 65 cents a cubic foot on building stone of any kind, sawn, dressed, hewn, polished or otherwise manufactured. This is the very lowest minimum duty which can be of the slightest service to us; and we have named it badly with a view to taking the Government into our confidence and- laying all our cards on the table. In order to make this effective at all, it must also be enacted that the stone be measured at its extreme dimensions, thus forestalling trouble in the matter of measurements.
If we are granted this protection, we think that we can confidently guarantee the Govern-

311P
ment that a widespread and important stone industry will grow up in Canada. Once more our cities will be built of Canadian stone manufactured by Canadian labour. The great buildings which are now rising in every centre in the land from the Atlantic to the Pacific will be monuments to Canadian natural wealth, to Canadian progress and to Canadian skill.
This legislation, whether wise or unwise, has been brought down by the Government by reason of the strong, earnest and continuous representations made to them by the stonecutters of Canada. They say that the present tariff affords them no protection and that they see no reason why the stonecutters of Canada should not dress and cut the stone used in Canadian buildings. II the stone of quarries not only of the United States but of other countries is desired for use in Canadian buildings, that stone may be brought in under the existing rates and may be dressed and further manufactured by the Canadian artisan. Person-
4 p.m. ally, I cannot see why the cost of the stone, if not manufactured on more than two sides, should be increased beyond the cost of the raw material, plus the cost of the labour which would be bestowed upon it in Canada. It is a fact that, notwithstanding the enormous building activity in Canada, there are frequent and prolonged periods of unemployment for the Canadian stonecutters, when they drift across the line in the winter, whereas they might be continuously employed here. It does seem to me that if any protective legislation is justifiable, legislation of this character can certainly be justified upon the grounds that I have mentioned.


Mr. LOGGIE:: I received a letter from
the proprietor of a quarry in my county and, although it does not necessarily express my own opinion, I would like the minister to consider what this quarry owner has to say with regard to this increase of duty. The letter is as follows:
This proposed change is solely in the interests of the large cut stone contractors, as the duty on rough blocks, 15 per cent, and on stone sawn on two sides, 20 per cent, is left unchanged. On the other hand, the duty is to be raised on stone sawn on four sides or further manufactured.
That, I think, is an error; the duty is not to bo raised if the stone is not to be sawn on more than four sides. Item 306b means that there is a duty of 15 cents per hundred pounds on stone sawn on two sides, including also stone sawn on four sides. The 45 cent rate is on stone further manufactured than sawn on four sides.


William Thomas White: That last statement I think is correct; further manufactured than sawn, on four sides is the higher rate.


Mr. EMMERSON:: How does that help the stone cutters if you allow it in sawn on the four sides?


William Stewart Loggie: My correspondent proceeds :
On the other hand the duty is to be raised on stone sawed on four sides or further manufactured. If there is to be a change in the tariff, surely the quarrying industry-developing our own resources-is as worthy of increased protection as the cut stone industry-working largely on imported stone.
As far as the stonecutter, as we know him, is concerned, the proposed change will make little difference to him. His work is mostly on local stone, as Montreal limestone and Maritime province stones, where the cutting is largely done by hand. On the other hand the large contractors working with imported stone, do most of their work with machinery.
We have properties in your country that we propose to develop as soon as we get the necessary capital. It is the opinion of myself, and of very many people-architects and others- that Miramichi stone is the best and the most beautiful building stone on the continent. The Langevin Block, Ottawa, Lord Strathcona's house and the Birk's building, Montreal, are well known examples of work in which this stone has been used.
Every hoa. gentleman present knows the stone because it is used in the Langevin block in Ottawa. I bring this matter to the attention of the minister in the hope that he may consider if he is treating our quarry men fairly in raising the duty on stone manufactured further than sawn on four sides to 45 cents and not increasing it on ordinary rough stone.


William Thomas White: Is it the opinion of my
hon. friend that the tariff o,m rough stone finished on any more than two sides should be increased?


William Stewart Loggie: It is the opinion of my
friend who is writing to me, and I am not expressing my personal opinion on the matter. My correspondent is a quarry man interested in a quarry in my county and I want the minister to consider his representation of these matters. If I were asked an opinion personally I would say not to increase the duty, to leave the matter as it is.


John Gillanders Turriff: The more this matter is looked into the more we will discover that it is exactly like other particular changes in the tariff, in the interest of the big manufacturers of cut stone, not in the interest of the consumer. There is

no question whatever that if this1 increased, duty is levied you practically shut off all competition from outside and you will raise the cost of every building in which cut stone is used in the future. While possibly a larger amount of the work that is done will be done by Canadian stone-cutters, the result will be, in the end, an increase in the cost of building with cut stone, so that under the increased duty the Canadian stone-cutters will cut less stone than at the present. During the Budget debate I drew the attention of the minister to one particular case. I do not pretend to be posted on this matter and I would be most averse to taking work away from the Canadian stone cutter. But there is more than the Canadian stone-cutter to consider. One of the reports that the minister has just read pointed out that there were 60 quarries in the West, which, according to the report, are in a languishing condition. Why are they in a languishing condition ? Because their prices are -simply prohibitive. They want to have -matters in their own hand now and their prices under the increased duty will be practically prohibitive. I drew the attention of the House to one circumstance that *came under my own knowledge in connection with an office building in which I was interested which was being erected in Regina. They wanted cut stone in the front of the building. They instructed the architect to get prices on cut stoRe and to get the stone in Canada if possible. They sent down to Winnipeg where there are several quarries in operation and asked for prices. We got the stone delivered in Regina, freight and duty paid, for $1,600 less than the amount of the Canadian tenders, although the , American tenderer paid the duty and freight two or three times as far as the freight from the quarries near Winnipeg to Regina. The stone near Winnipeg is first-class stone and would have been entirely satisfactory, but the prices were exorbitant; and if the Government now steps in and shuts off all competition a few of the large stone cutting firms will reap all the benefit, there is no question about that. They will make more money, but I claim that the Canadian quarry man, the Canadian stone-cutter will not reap any benefit and the Canadian consumer will get it where my hon. friend is generally inclined to give it to him, in the neck.


Mr. BRADBURY:: 
John Gillanders Turriff: Simply because the increased price will shut out the use of cut stone for trimming buildings. They will use brick and cement instead.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend says that this tariff change will not inure to the benefit of the stone-cutters.


John Gillanders Turriff: Not in the end.


William Thomas White: The opinion of the journeymen stone-cutters themselves ought to be as valuable at least as that of my hon. friend. I hold here petitions signed by stone-cutters associations from all parts of Canada. Many of- these have been sent in to me by members who have been interested in this subject. I deem it of so much importance, in view of the statements made by my hon. friend that this will not inure to the benefit of the stonecutters, that I am going to place one of these petitions on ' Hansard.' I will read it, as my hon. friend will find it interesting:
We, the officers of the Journeymen Stonecutters Association of North America, Montreal branch, have been authorized by a meeting of council held in Montreal on November 6, 1912, to call to your notice and ask you to give your favourable consideration to the following request:
We might state that we have a membership of about seven hundred mechanics, stonecutters and carvers in Montreal, and there are fully as many more scattered around in the province of Quebec, besides quarrymen and helpers employed in conjunction with us. Our very existence is being threatened by the invasion of stone imported from the United States, cut and finished, ready for erection in buildings owing to the present conditions of the tariff which does not protect our industries. This is caused largely by the improvements in machinery and transportation, but if the tariff was framed to allow only rough stone to be imported we are convinced that more machinery would he installed in Canada and our industry would get its natural expansion instead of the trade going from us.
We have taken cognizance of the petition dated October 8, 1912, presented by the Montreal Builders' Exchange. We agree with this petition and indorse it in every way. It would be useless to go further into details which are so well defined. It is in our interests as well as in the interests of capital that the cut stone and quarry industries get the protection asked for.
It would give us much steadier work if the tariff was adjusted as our employers would adjust their plants for winter work. Many large jobs have been cut outside -of Canada when members of our Union have been idle here. This applies all over Canada. The stonecutters of the West are in a worse position than we are.
The Canadian quarries are not being developed simply because they are unable to compete with the cut stone imported from outside. We know that we have the stone in Canada hut

the quarries have not heen worked and opened up. The quarries south of Canada were not developed until the great demand for cut stone came along; now we have an immense demand in Canada for first class buildings employing a lot of stone and we would request that the opportunity be given for the development of Canadian quarries. We have only scratched the surface of the rock in Canada and have not got down to the best layers of stone in any of the quarries- We would request our share of the expansion and prosperity which Canada is enjoying at the present time.
This petition is signed by journeymen's associations all over Canada. The journeymen should know where their interests lie, and when my hon. friend makes the assertion that this tariff change will not be of any benefit to the stonecutters of Canada,
I can only conclude that he pays not the slightest attention to the expression of their opinion, as given in the petition I have just read.


John Gillanders Turriff: Does my hon. friend think that the stonecutters and quarry-men are the best judges in that matter?


William Thomas White: The stonecutters are the best judges as to whether this particular legislation will advantage' them or not; as to whether it will have the effect of giving them employment in winter in finishing stone imported for use in buildings in Canada. My hon. friend has referred to the stone industry in the West. I agree with him that Canada ought to produce all the stone required for use in the construction of buildings throughout the Dominion. We have unlimited quantities of stone, but it is a fact that the quarrying industry of Canada has not developed as we might have expected. Complaint has been made that this is due to the fact that under the McKinley tariff Canadian stone was shut out almost entirely from the United States, and that by reason of the low Canadian tariff, cut stone was imported from the United States to meet the requirements of Canada. The result has been, according to the quarrymen's contention, that the Canadian quarries have not been developed.
In answer to the representations made by my hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Loggie) through the letter of his correspondent, I would say that the Government had repeated requests from the quarry interests to increase the duty not only upon finished stone, but upon rough stone. So far the Government has not seen fit to act' on these representations. What the correspondent of my hon. friend from Northumberland had in view was that the Government should be asked to increase
the duty upon rough stone, which as I have said, has not been done.


William Stewart Loggie: And sawn on four sides?


William Thomas White: Yes, sawn, not only on
two sides, but up to four sides. I do not know whether my hon. friend subscribes to the opinion held by his correspondent, but his correspondent undoubtedly asks that the duty on rough stone shall be increased in the interest of Canadian quarries. No doubt a good deal can be said for that view, but so far the Government has not brought down legislation to increase the duty upon rough stone. Whether we shall do so in the future or not I am unable at this moment to say. I have-been asked as to how this new legislation will benefit the Canadian quarrymen. I think the answer is supplied in the assertion of my hon. friend from Lambton (Mr. Pardee) that if this legislation goes through, stone in the rough will not be imported. If stone in the rough is not imported, it is obvious that the stone required for Canadian purposes will be supplied from our own quarries, and indirectly, therefore, the Canadian quarry industry will be advantaged by this legislation.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: If you make the duty
absolutely prohibitive-and I think the figures that I have quoted prove that it will be-would it not give the Canadian quarrymen power to charge just what they like for their stone, as in the case instanced by my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff)? It would establish a monopoly.


William Thomas White: I do not admit that the
duty is prohibitive; 30 to 35 per cent is not generally regarded as prohibitive. An equal duty is imposed on many items in the tariff. My hon. friend must bear in mind that there are many qualities of stone, and that they vary as to price. Take building stone sawn on four sides, for instance; the cheapest is 55 cents per cubic foot, but it runs as high as a dollar. The average duty upon this is about 30 per cent.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Might I put it in another way? Taking the concrete case of the Walkerville building, if stone f.o.b Bedford costs $7,635, the duty under the old tariff would amount to $1,727; under the new tariff the duty would be $3,200. Does

the minister not consider that a prohibitive duty?


William Thomas White: I do not know whether
my hon. friend's figures are correct or not; all of us are fallible at times, and my hon. friend may be mistaken as to his figures. But whether correct or not, I would not admit that if a prohibitive duty -is imposed on an article that the cost to the Canadian consumer would be the cost of the article in a foreign market plus the duty, because that would presuppose that there was no competition within the tariff wall. I do not admit that for one moment. We have quarries all over Canada competing with each other. It has not been suggested that there is a combine among the quarrymen of Canada. On the contrary, there is competition. As long as the raw material is admitted at a reasonable rate of duty the only question that would arise, unless there is some understanding between all the quarrymen, is this: How much is the additional cost by reason of the fact that the raw material is finished in Canada by Canadian labour? I have not raised the rate upon rough stone and I have not raised the rate on stone sawn on two sides only. Therefore what question can arise? If the rough stone is finished in the United States the cost at the place where it is manufactured in the United States is the cost of the raw material plus the labour. It 'is precisely the same in Canada. The cost will be the cost of the rough stone, or stone sawn on not more than two sides, imported into Canada plus the cost of the Canadian labour bestowed upon it. The object of this resolution is to bring it about that by a reasonable tariff the Canadian stonecutting industry may get the advantage and the men may get work during the winter months who are now walking the streets idle.	* gj
Bedford, Indiana, limestone sawed four sides, 55 cents per cubic foot, f.o.b., quarry.
In respect to stone further manufactured than sawn on four sides the practice in the United States is to sell the stone on the basis of the rough stone plus a charge per hour for the work performed thereon. It is, therefore, impossible to state the exact price charged per cubic foot on finished stone, the requirements of no two customers being alike; the patterns in each case being different with the result that the machine work cost more on one than on the other. Invoices have been examined and the average is about $2 per cubic foot.
The case which has been brought to the attention of my hon. friend may be an ex-[Mr. Pardee. J
treme one. It, is perfectly obvious from this statement that the prices vary. We must look at the average price, and the statement made here is that the average price is about $2 per cubic foot. This duty then would run from 30 to 40 per cent on the finished stone. Bough stone will remain precisely as it is under the present tariff.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The minister will admit that it is much more expensive to finish stone by all hand work than by the planer. If it is a fact that there is no stone on this side on which the planer can be used it must cost more to the consumer.


William Thomas White: Why can they not plane it here?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: They do not do it.


William Thomas White: Why not?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I suppose there must be some good reason why there is no stone produced in Canada that is planed here and as a consequence it must be all done by hand work which makes it more expensive to the consumer. The minister says that, provided the duty is put on as he proposes, even according to the figures I have quoted on the Walkerville building, it does not necessarily mean that as a consequence the consumer will have to pay whatever charge may ibe asked of him by the producers of Canada because there is competition, between the producers and as a result the price will be kept down. But, if my figures are correct, they simply go to show that it will be no time at all, because this tariff is prohibitive of importation, before there is a combine amongst the quarrymen of the Dominion and they will simply lift the prices to whatever height they see fit.


William Thomas White: Then we can deal with it.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: It just brings me back to the conclusion that the very minute you put a prohibitive duty upon any article that is used by the public, that minute you make it possible to form a combine and allow the combine to charge what they like to the consumer.


Mr. WILCOX:: My hon. friend from
Lambton (Mr. Pardee) seems to have based his argument entirely upon the stone that is supposed to enter into the federal building at Walkerville. From what I can gather from the specifications, the stone that is to enter into the construction of that building is Roman stone which is a kind

of artificial stone manufactured in Toronto and which will not come from Bedford. Application has already been made by some other parties who manufacture another kind of stone, which they claim is equally as good as Eoman stone, to have their product included in the specifications and the matter is now being considered by the arehitectis in the Department of Public Works. Therefore, I am rather inclined to the view that my hon. friend has received bis information torn a! (wrong source and that the stone which will enter into the construction of this building will not come from the United States.
Mi'. PAEDEE: I did not say that it would come from the United States at all but my argument was based upon the figures which I have quoted and which come from a contractor who ha.s tendered upon the Walker-ville building.


Oliver James Wilcox: You said that it would come from Bedford, Indiana?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Certainly, because if he
gets the contract the stone will come from Bedford. If a prohibitive duty goes on his tender cannot be considered for one moment and he is shut out.


Oliver James Wilcox: I think my hon. friend
will agree that under the specifications which have been adopted by the department of Public Works the stone that is to be used is to be Eoman stone and that it cannot be the sandstone which comes from Indiana.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They will not allow
Eoman stone in Ontario, will they?


Oliver James Wilcox: Oh, yes they will.


William Stewart Loggie: The minister mentioned a moment ago that he had not raised the duty on stone sawn on two sides. I infer from that, that he is in doubt as to whether the duty on stone sawn on four sides has: been raised. Would the minister mind telling me what the ad valorem rate would be equivalent to 15 cents per 100 pounds under item 306b?


William Thomas White: I have said that the average ad valorem rate is 30 per cent.


William Stewart Loggie: As I understood the minister had not raised the duty on stone sawn on four sides but as a matter of fact he has.


William Thomas White: No.


William Stewart Loggie: Well, I understand that
under the present tariff it comes in at a rate of 20 per cent?


William Thomas White: Yes.


William Stewart Loggie: If 15 cents per 100 pounds is the equivalent of 30 per cent then I am wrong; the minister has raised it 10 per cent.


William Thomas White: Yes.


William Stewart Loggie: Then my correspondent is right and the minister has raised the duty.


William Thomas White: Your correspondent is right in this:	We have raised the duty upon
stone that is sawn on more than two sid*i. On building stone we have made two classes; on stone that is sawn on more than two sides but not sawn on more than four sides we have made a rate of 15 cents peT 100 pounds. Then, under 306b, for
Building stone, other than marble or granite, planed, turned, cut or further manufactured than sawn on four sideswhich is cut stone, we have made a rate of 45 cents per 100 pounds.


William Stewart Loggie: I understood the minister to say that the ad valorem rate on stone sawn on four sides would be about 30 per cent. If that be true the cost of planing is very material.


William Thomas White: 
William Stewart Loggie: Then the minister has
raised the duty on stone further finished than that to the extent of from 50 to 60 per cent, because it is three times as much on the further manufactured article, namely, 45 cents and it is raised 15 cents when it is manufactured to the extent of being sawn on four sides.


William Thomas White: In reducing a specific duty to the ad valorem rate the cost of the article dealt with must be considered.


William Stewart Loggie: Quite so.


William Thomas White: Stone sawn on four sides only is not nearly as expensive as stone that is planed and further finished. The result is that the 45 cents per 100 lb., which appears to my hon. friend to be such a substantial increase, is, I believe, having regard to the value of the stone to which it relates, less than the 15 cents per 100 lbs. rate on stone sawn on four sides only. Where my hon. friend is confused is, that he has failed to recognize the in

crease in value given to the stone by the cutting process to which it is subjected.


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend the minister considers that the stone-cutters and the large firms who deal in cut stone are a sufficient authority for him to grant their request when they place before him the wants of their business. From their statement of the ease, he increases the duty largely in accordance with their demand, but when the wheat growers of . Canada come to this Government and present their case, the minister and the Government do not consider that they know anything about their business. Their ideas are not considered at all; they are turned down and other interests considered when it comes to deal with their industry. That shows the difference in the treatment handed out on the one hand to the wheat growers of Canada and on the other to the big cut-stone concerns, who wish to shut out all competition and Charge any price they choose to the people who put up buildings in which cut stone is used.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Taking up the last point, I maintain that the hon. member for Assiniboia is clearly wrong. The wheat raisers of Canada, not considering the West alone, do not want free wheat. Some of the stonecutters of West Peterborough have been out of work for years because the duty has been too low, and for the same reason the stonecutters of the United States have been enjoying the employment that Canadians should have had. Why the Opposition will persist in dragging in the principle of protection and free trade at every available opportunity is more than I can understand, because it really ought to he evident to them by this time that, if you have an evenly, properly balanced system of protection, both the consumer and the producer are relatively in precisely the same position in which they were before that duty was put on. They are in exactly the same relative position as if there were free trade. My hon. friends opposite, however, do not seem to be able to grasp the simple mathematical proposition that if you add equals to equals the results are equal. Add the duty to all and all are equal. It is a very simple proposition, and my hon. friends ought to be able to grasp it. There is a difference as regards the outsider or the foreigner, but we are not legislating for the outsider or the foreigner; we are legislating for ourselves, IMr. W. T. White.]
and there is absolutely no difference between the relative position of the producer and the consumer when each producer, who is also a consumer, receives a fair measure of protection.
These stonecutters of West Peterborough are very desirous of having this legislation passed; and, consistently with the true policy of protection which is so widely and so well promulgated and directed in Canada, and which has resulted to the very great glory and benefit of Canada, I say that we should have this legislation and I hope it will be promptly passed without any further objection.


George Henry Bradbury: I desire to say a word or two on this question. I have, I suppose, in my county nearly all the quarries in Manitoba. There is at Garson, some thirty-five miles east of the city of Winnipeg, a plant that employs about 250 stonecutters; at least it did when it was in active operation. It is one of the largest quarries in Canada. During the presentation of the last Budget of the Hon. Mr. Fielding, I presented a petition from the stonecutters of Manitoba asking for increased protection, and pointing out that, if they did not get that protection, the industry in which they were engaged would be affected very materially. What has been the result in that institution? Owing to the fact that American stone could be brought in in competition with our own, that institution last year employed less than a quarter of the number it was employing before. The American stone was coming in in a finished condition; all the labour required to finish that stone being procured on the other side of the line. The dressing of the stone is the most valuable part of the work. The stonecutters, who are highly paid men, were leaving Garson, going to the other side of the line and building up industries there instead of in Canada. The protection now afforded to the stonecutters is, to my mind, a wise one.
I can very well understand how the case that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) gave us a moment ago in regard to the increased cost of stone at Regina might occur. I can believe there are cases where stone from the other side of the line can be brought in and manufactured in Canada cheaper than stone quarried at Garson, but I do not think there is any such difference in price as my hon. friend has quoted. So far as the case he has mentioned is com-cerned, he may be absolutely right. Any-

one knows that contractors, when tendering for supplying a certain quantity of stone for a building, are very liable to make mistakes or to ask a greater sum than they are justified in getting for a certain work, but that does not apply generally. On some of the finest buildings in Winnipeg, and before there was any attempt to increase the duty, the contractors were using our Manitoba stone which is as -good as any stone in America. This industry is surely worthy of being aided. I admit that it would be wrong to put a prohibitive duty on any article that would give any industry an opportunity to control the market. I do not, however, believe that this duty is prohibitive. The duty on sawn stone and on stone dressed on two sides has been increased only slightly. The rought stone still comes in at the old rate of 20 per cent. One of the hon. gentlemen pointed out that the fact that the stone came in in its rough state entailed an extra cost to the purchaser on account of the extra freight on the waste. Surely the fact that the stone is manufactured in Canada; that our stonecutters are being employed by the thousand to cut off that waste, more than compensates this country for the little extra cost of the freight to bring over that stone. It is the old story over again. If we are going to build up an industry in this country, we have to take care of it, and we have not in the past been taking care of the stone quarries or of the stonecutters.
I do not think there is any part of Canada more directly affected by the proposed change in the stone duties than is the province of Manitoba; and it would be a crime, almost, on the part of the Government if they did not do * something at this time to protect that industry. I am strongly in favour of what the minister is trying to do, and I am not at all surprised at the arguments presented by hon. gentlemen on the other side. But I want to tell these gentlemen that while it is all right for those from rural districts like the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) who can make an appeal to the farmers, that hon. gentleman's friends who have to face the labouring men will find it a different proposition.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Minister of
Finance will recall the fact that in the course of some remarks on a former occasion I called his attention to the representations made by certain quarrying interests. I discharged my obligation to my correspondent in bringing to the notice of the Finance Minister the views of my correspondent. I wish now to supplement what
I stated by reading from another letter. My correspondent, who is a quarryman, says:
The change is entirely in the interest of the stonecutters, or builders, or masons, whatever they may he called-perhaps contractors is the better word. The change gives them the right to import stone sawn on two sides as rough stone, and puts the Canadian quarries completely at the mercy of the contractors. They never import stone sawn on four sides, it is always sawn on two sides if sawn at all and is known as ' mill block.'
This is the representation of a quarryman from the Maritime provinces.


William Thomas White: Does the hon. member understand that we have not increased the duty upon rough stone?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I understand that.
The contention I attempted to make was that the change was made in the interest of the contractors, that is, of the men who take contracts to construct a building. It is made easier for them to bring their stone in the form in which they want it- sawn on two sides. In my judgment-only in my judgment, of course-this is not in the interest even of the stonecutter so called, but rather in the interest of the contractor and is against the interest of tihe thousands of quarrymen employed in the stone quarries throughout Canada.
"Mr. WHITE:	That view seems to be
absolutely inconsistent with what we are at all events attempting to do by this legislation, and I cannot conceive how the hon. gentleman arrives at that conclusion.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Because the contractor wants the stone sawn on two sides, he can bring that in more favourably.


William Thomas White: But I understood the hon. member for West Lambton to say that that was precisely what would not happen- that stone sawn on two sides would not come in now, and that stone would have to be got from Canadian quarries. That is what I had in view when I stated that indirectly it would help the quarrymen.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am speaking from
the standpoint of the eastern quarrymen. The difficulty with him is to get a market in this section of Canada, because of the high transportation charges. The Indiana and Ohio quarrymen have an advantage over the sandstone quarrymen of eastern Canada by reason of the distance and expense of transportation. There is a dis-

position on the part of contractors in this section of Canada to purchase the stone from Indiana and Ohio. They now get it on payment of 20 per cent duty if it is sawn on not more than two sides.


William Thomas White: Is it the hon. member's
opinion that the Government should raise the duty and keep out the stone from Indiana and Ohio?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am opposed to the raising of all duties.


William Thomas White: Then, what is the way
Out?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. minister will pardon me-I am representing for his consideration the views that are presented to me.


William Thomas White: I thought they were the hon. gentleman's own views.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not my own views at all. A quarry owner at Montreal writes to me as follows:
You have no doubt observed in Budget speech that it is proposed to protect the stonecutting industry by increasing the duty on manufactured stone, making it 15 cents per 100 pounds on all stone sawn on four sides, and 45 cents per 100 pounds on further manufactured stone. That will prevent the importation of manufactured stone and is evidently worded in the interest of the stonecutting industry only, with the intention of importing stone sawn on two sides only, or unmanufactured. This, of course, would be of no benefit to the stone-quarrying industry of Canada and will not tend toward its development. It shows a very ungenerous disposition on the part of the stone industry and unfairness on the part of the Government towards the stone-quarrying industry of Canada.
The gentleman who wrote this letter is not a supporter of the Liberal party, but a Conservative. These are his views and he honours me with a request to place them before my hon. friend. Now, the point I wish to make is that if the hon. minister is under the impresssion that he he is favouring the man who handles the chisel and ma'let, he is evidently mistaken.


William Thomas White: Why?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 
William Thomas White: It is in the mind of my
hon. friend's correspondent-I understand that he has not put this forward as his own view-that the Government should have carried the increase further and placed a higher duty upon rough stone and stone sawn upon two sides? What we have done, as I have stated repeatedly to the committee is to leave the duty as it was. We have not reduced it; we have not increased it; we have left as it was the duty upon rough stone and upon stone sawn upon two sides. I think my hon. friend does not appreciate the fact that a great deal of work is done upon the finished stone; that is the work which we are trying to have done in Canada. We thought that the interests of the consumer would be conserved by allowing stone in the rough and sawn on not more than two sides, to come in under the present rates, and that the further dressing could be done in Canada. I point out to my hon. friend that his correspondent evidently had in mind the idea that the Government should have increased the duty upon stone in the rough and upon stone sawn on two sides.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have no knowledge of what was in the mind of my correspondent; I have placed on 'Hansard' his views and suggestions, wherein he stated what he did want. I mentioned at the time that I did not endorse his suggestion, but I submitted them for the benefit of my hon. friend and in order to show what a tangle protection places business in. When you take a step towards protecting some particular class of people, you disturb the equilibrium of others; then you have to go back and attempt to restore that equilibrium, thereby occasioning another disturbance.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: I recall a discussion which took place in the House a few weeks -ago in which I, as well as the Minister of Public Works, was criticised because in the construction of the public building in the city of Brantford American instead of Canadian stone had been used. The subject was introduced by the hon. member for North Oxford, who has kept a very watchful eye upon the Brantford building. It appears to me that the minister is trying to meet the views of the -hon. member for North Oxford and others who think that Canadian stone

should be used in the construction of Canadian public buildings. I am quite in accordance with that view and I regret
5 p.m. that it was found necessary to use American stone in the construction of the Brantford building. I think the tariff resolution now before the House has in view the doing away with the use of American stone in our Canadian public buildings. The minister is quite consistent when he says that this tariff readjustment is going to improve the quarry industry, and I disagree with the hon. member for Westmorland if he intended to convey the idea that the quairrymen will not be benefited.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I was stating not my own views, but the views of quarrymen as to what they thought the result would be.


William Foster Cockshutt: I followed the hon. gentleman as closely as possible and I found it very difficult to disentangle his views from those of his correspondent. I am not at all sure whether my hon. friend put any views of his own upon ' Hansard.'


Mr. A. A. McLEAN:: How would this increased duty benefit the quarrymen?


William Foster Cockshutt: It is evident on the face of it that it will benefit the quarry-men. Heretofore the quarrymen have not had the large machinery for planing the stone on two or four sides, and when the demand for the stone is made sufficiently large and the American stone is kept out when cut on four sides or further manufactured, the result will be the introduction of improved machinery into these smaller quarries, thus enabling the quarrymen to compete with the American manufactured article on even terms. I do not know what quarry the hon. member for Queens, Prince Edward Island, has in view, but I understand that in the province of New Brunswick-in Sackville, for instance-there are quarries which have this improved machinery, which I hope will be further introduced into Canada. I myself think that this Government are laying down the principle that in the construction of any public building to be built of stone, nothing but Canadian stone will be used. It must be evident to hon. gentlemen of the committee that we have ample stone in Canada to erect all our Canadian public buildings, and the use of Canadian etone should be encouraged as much as possible. I believe this resolution of the Minister of Finance will lead to the further
production of Canadian stone; that it will result in the introduction of improved machinery and that stone planed, rounded, and manufactured on four sides will be produced iin Canada instead of in the United States. The quarrymen will be distinctly benefited by this increase of duty on stone to 30 and 45 cents per hundred pounds. 1 want to make it perfectly clear that so far as I am concerned I should like to see Canadian stone used in all our Canadian public buildings. After the imposition of the duty which the Finance Minister is asking us to endorse to-day, I believe that no more buildings will be constructed in Brantford or elsewhere in Canada with American stone, because I believe that Canadian stone can successfully compete with the American product.
In addition to what the Finance Minister has presented, I have been waited on by three or four deputations of stonecutters asking for this very thing, that their in-' dustry be protected. It is a very large industry. I refer to the men who move about and use mallet and chisel. Anybody who watches the progress of a public building will note that these men are very much in evidence upon the ground. So far as the Brantford building is concerned, up to date about $15,000 has been paid to men who have been cutting stone right there on the ground. That is only in one building. What would it be on, all the buildings in Canada if we were to enact legislation that would make it possible for stonecutters to cut all that work upon the ground, to have Canadian and British citizens working upon our own jobs instead of bringing in the stone in a manufactured state from the United States, much of it made by machinery in the very highly specialized quarries of Ohio and Indiana to which the hon. member for Westmorland has referred. I would think that hon. gentleman would be the first to hold up his hands for this duty. I know he would like to help his fellow citizens, but he has the free trade microbe firmly implanted in his brain and he does not think he can stretch a point even to help his own province of New Brunswick in this respect. I venture to say that these correspondents of his and others interested in the stone business in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec and further west as well, all who are engaged in either the quarry business or in stonecutting, will be in full accord with the action of the minister. I think it is a patriotic and national policy with regard to stone

and public edifices which every member on either side should encourage rather than criticise.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I wish to inform my hon. friend that for the last twenty-five or thirty years or even more, they have been sawing stone in the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The initiation of that industry in those provinces was at least contemporaneous with the beginning of the sawn stone industry at Berea, and other points in Ohio. I have very great sympathy for the stone quarrying industry but I have a very great sympathy also for all classes of our people; and while the selfishness of the stone quarry men might lead them to ask us to especially pick them out as being entitled to particular favours there is a great consuming class, a building class, the great mass of the people throughout Canada, who perhaps would take a contrary view. The germ to which my hon. friend refers has been for many years in my brain with respect to the matter.


William Foster Cockshutt: Are very many of
these small houses or cheaper class of buildings made of stone? Are they not usually made of brick or wood?


Henry Robert Emmerson: In our part of Canada wood heretofore has been so very cheap that wooden buildings for residences have prevailed. They can be constructed at a much less cost and we have not so many millionaires although there are a few who live in stone edifices. Many of our public buildings are of stone or of brick.


Angus Alexander McLean: While 1 appreciate the fact that the minister is putting into effect a very good policy, and that there should be an increase of duty upon stone sawn on four sides, still I think that something should be done for the quarrymen. I would suggest that the duty of fifteen cents should be placed upon rough stone and upon stone sawn on two sides. I believe that if this were done we could develop a stone business in Canada which would fill the requirements of the whole country. To-day the duty of twenty per cent on rough stone is not sufficient. I think that the opinion of all quarrymen in Canada is that twenty per cent on rough stone and on stone sawn on two sides is no protection at all. It may be a benefit to the artisan, to the man engaged in cutting the stone; but will it be a benefit to the quarryman? I think you will find that the opinion of quarrymen all over Canada to-day is that it is no benefit at all. I

have letters similar to that read by the hon. member for Westmorland, saying that the majority of the stone which comes in here to-day is stone sawn on two sides. That will still continue on the old twenty per cent basis, and the manufactured stone, of course, will come under the forty-five cent rate. I do not believe that much of that stone comes into Canada to-day. I do not think that the duty now introduced goes far enough. That is my own opinion and the opinion of gentlemen from whom I have received communications who are engaged in the business. I know that the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Em-merson) is -a free trader ostensibly in certain places. He gave an opinion here as the opinion of a friend of his who was a Liberal-Conservative, but I believe that if he spoke from his own heart he would express the same opinion, perhaps not in this House but to his friends outside.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Order.


Frank Oliver: The question is not one of free trade against protection, it is a question of a revenue or reasonable tariff against protection. I do not want to be understood as objecting to a reasonable tariff or to the protection that results because of that tariff; but in regard to this item that we have under consideration I think, having listened to the discussion very carefully, that it goes altogether beyond protection and becomes pure piracy. The hon. member from Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) has urged that there should be a balance in all these matters as between that which is protected and that at whose expense protection is given. In this ease we have absolutely a minor industry of this country both as to the amount of stone quarried and as to the number of men employed in its quarrying or preparation. Of such a limited character is that industry that everybody knows that all over Canada stone is imported for building purposes. Right here in this city of Ottawa, founded upon a limestone rock, the stone for the largest and latest public buildings-no, I will say the stone for all the later buildings-has been imported. For instance, stone was imported for the Chateau Laurier, the Grand Trunk station, and for a great many office buidings in this city.


Mr. MARCIL:: Are not all the Canadian buildings built with Canadian stone?


Frank Oliver: Possibly they were a good while ago, but I am speaking of what is

*occurring to-day or within the last two or three years. The evidence goes to show that for one reason or another this industry is a minor one, and when my hon. friend undertakes to impose such a measure of protection for a minor industry he is simply taxing the public at large for the benefit of a very small proportion of the community. He is placing the many under contribution for the benefit of a very few.


Mr. BLAIN:: May I he permitted to correct my hon. friend when he makes the statement that all the public buildings in Ottawa recently erected have been built with American stone? The Birks building is of New Brunswick stone.


Frank Oliver: I did not say all the
buildings. I instanced the Chateau Laurier, the Grand Trunk station, and there are several others, including, I think, the *Carnegie library. The matter is beyond question. We had a debate in this House a short while ago in regard to the imported stone used in the public building at Brantford, and so it is all over the country. We have the case of the building in Regina, cited by my hon. friend from Assiniboia. If it were an important industry that would he benefited in a measurable degree without injury to the public at large, I could see some reason in my hon. friend s making the change; but when he undertakes to burden the community at large ostensibly for the benefit of an industry which is of an essentially minor character, I say that is not protection-it is piracy, and certainly should not form, any part of the policy of a government of this country. There was a tariff on stone before this amendment was brought in. Why was that not a sufficient protection-if you want to call it protection -to those interested in the production of stone, either as quarrymen, builders, or stonecutters. Is it not a fact that stone suitable for building purposes is only found in isolated localities, and that the freight on that stone to the place where it is used is equal in, large measure to the actual cost of production? That is to say, the freight is in all cases a large part of the total cost of the stone; therefore, stone situated near where it is going to be used enjoys an advantage, by reason of the freight rate, that with the duty formerly prevailing should be sufficient encouragement and protection to that industry. My hon. friend has mentioned conditions in the West. My hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) mentioned that in his constituency there
are a large number of quarries-and that is true. But from there to the Rocky mountains there are 800 miles of territory where there is actually not one quarry or the possibility of one, but where there is the certainty of there being from day to day and for all time to come an enormous demand for building material. Does my hon. friend think it right that that vast area of country should be compelled to contribute to the industry that is located in his particular constituency? Does he think that is fair? Does he think that is the National Policy? It is a Selkirk policy, but it is not even a western policy.


George Henry Bradbury: What about the policy you voted for last night?


Frank Oliver: Never mind about that. In what way does my hon. friend object to my vote of last night?


George Henry Bradbury: It was a more selfish -polieyT-so-tar as the-National Rolicyms con- oerned, than this, and if it had been carried into effect it would have affected detrimentally farmers all over the country.


Frank Oliver: I voted for it because I
believed it would have affected beneficially the farmers of my part of the country and of my hon. friend's part of the country.


George Henry Bradbury: It would have ruined hundreds of people in my constituency.


Frank Oliver: Not one. It would have been of benefit to the farmers of my hon. friend's constituency and to the farmers of my own constituency. While on this point, let me say that the vote was a vote to allow the farmer to sell his potatoes where he could find a market for them. My hon. friend from Selkirk to-day is standing up in this House to say that the man who wants to build a good building in the prairie provinces shall not have the privilege of doing it unless he pays an unjust toll to the quarrymen in the constituency of Selkirk or in some other part of the country. That is the difference between the two policies. I say that it goes hard with the men who are refused the privilege of selling their products in the open market to be compelled to buy what they require under the high tariff that the minister sees fit to impose. He has said to-day that it is his purpose to compel them to do 30.


William Thomas White: To do what?


Frank Oliver: To compel those who want to use good stone to pay the price that the quarrymen and stonecutters of Canada see fit to ask.


William Thomas White: How many farmers in the Northwest will use cut stone on their buildings?


Frank Oliver: The farmers of the Northwest will not use cut stone in their buildings; that is a certainty. More than that, I can tell my hon. friend that unless con-t ditions in the West are changed-as he could change them by a change of policy- the farmers in the Northwest will not be able to build many buildings for many years to come. But there axe other people in the Northwest besides the farmers.


William Thomas White: Is it not chiefly the large corporations, banks, railway companies and such like, that use cut stone; the Chateau Laurier for example?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend and I are quite in agreement. I have told him that the farmers are not going to use cut stone; they are not even using lumber just now, as his lumber friends will tell him. But there are towns and cities throughout the Northwest which are using cut stone when they can get it at a reasonable price. It is the hope and ambition of the people of every little town, and of every big town too, in the West, to erect handsome buildings, good public buildings, and good private buildings. They desire to use cut stone, so far -a.s possible, in the beautifying of those buildings; and at this particular time when times are harder than they have been for years my hon friend comes forward with a proposition that-as he has repeatedly declared to-day, and everybody knows it-will lay an abnormal tax on the use of cut -stone. My hon. friend from Lambton (Mr. Pardee) says it will be a prohibitive tax. I ask my hon. friend if I am not justified in using the expressions I have.


William Thomas White: Not by any means.


Frank Oliver: 
William Thomas White: Why cannot they have that ornamentation and why cannot the cutting of stone take place in Canada? I am admitting the rough stone at the same rate as before. Why cannot stonecutting industries be developed in Calgary, Regina and a number of other places to supply the needs of the West?


Frank Oliver: Can my hon. friend explain why the cut stone industry has not been established there long ago? The stone is there, the demand has been there but we have been importing -cut stone from the United States. If the people in the quarry and stone industry have not made provision for meeting the demand in Canada, that is their fault and not ours, and we should not be punished for it. But my hon. friend is going to punish us because the men who own the quarries have not been as enterprising as he thinks they ought to have been. In so far as the consumer is concerned at any rate, my hon. friend undertakes to tie up the whole of the western country and to hand it over to a small number of quarrymen, contractors and stonecutters in order to prevent the erection and beautification of buildings throughout the whole western country.
My hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) said a few moments ago that this would not ultimately redound to the benefit of the stonecutters-. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance did not see- fit to take up the matter as my hon. friend from A-ssiniboia had stated it. My hon. friend from Assiniboia -stated, and he stated what was absolutely true, that the increase in the tax on cut stone will prevent the use of -cut stone. My hon. friend from- Lambton (Mr. Pardee) has given figures which show that the rate is prohibitory under this new tariff. I ask then, if the use of cut stone is going to be prohibited by my hon. friend's tariff, how is the- stonecutter going to get employment?


William Thomas White: It will not be prohibitive.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend did not contradict the figures of my hon. friend from Lambton, and certainly the figures declare that it is prohibitory. A few minutes ago the hon. member for North

Essex (Mr. Wilcox) told the committee that the Government was. erecting a building in Walkerville, and was trimming that building with Roman stone-cement blocks -instead of with good cut stone. Are the stonecutters going to get any work out of that, I would ask my hon. friend the Minister of Finance? If he puts on this imposition so that men cannot use cut stone and are compelled to do without ornamentation or use cement, where is the stonecutter being benefited by the proposal that he makes? My hon. friend has introduced a proposition that he thought some political capital was to be got out of upon the plea that it was going to furnish work for stonecutters. It is not only not going to furnish work for stonecutters, hut he is going to do a great and lamentable injury, certainly to the prairie provinces, whatever may be the result iu other parts of the country. My hon. friend seems to be very extreme on the question of protection. All that anybody has to do is to come to him with a suggestibiT for the~im-position of taxation on the people of Canada, or of an increase of existing taxation, and forthwith it is imposed or increased.


William Thomas White: Oh, no.


Frank Oliver: There may be others-


William Thomas White: There are others.


Frank Oliver: There may be people who have thought of things that my hon. friend has not acceded to, hut the list of things that he has acceded to is sufficiently startling, and there is none more inexcusable than the imposition of an increased duty on cut stone.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) appears, as usual, to misunderstand this question. But before I deal with the matter on its merits, in answer to my hon. friend, I desire to call attention to a new theory in economics put forward by the hon. gentleman, which I think merits the attention of the committee. He said that if you had a large, or a major, industry, it would be a proper case for an increase of the tariff.


Frank Oliver: I did not.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend suggested that without question.


Frank Oliver: I beg my hon. friend's pardon.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend said that
if you had a large industry there might be something said for a tariff increase.


Frank Oliver: I said that I could see the reason that my hon. friend would put forward.


William Thomas White: All right, let us say that
my hon. friend could see it in connection with a large, or major, industry, which industry,- being well established, in all probability does not need the assistance of a protective tariff. He says that it is statesmanship in the case of a large industry, but in the case of a minor industry he says it is piracy-statesmanship on the one hand in connection with a large industry that does not need protection, whereas, in the case of the minor industry, it is piracy.


Frank Oliver: Sure.


William Thomas White: How long will the stonemit.tt.ing industry of Canada_remain__a
minor industry unless we change this tariff? It will continue to remain a minor industry, but if we give this moderate tariff increase, this reasonable degree of protection, there is every prospect of this minor industry becoming a major industry. My hon. friend talked about this tariff change being prohibitory and about the people of the West and other parts of Canada being deprived of the privilege of using cut stone. My hon. friend has failed to understand the changes which the Government proposes. My hon. friend should know that any stone-cutting industry in the West can bring in rough stone and stone sawn on two sides at precisely the same rate as was approved by the Goverment of which he was a member. The tariff has not been increased in respect to stone in the rough and it can be brought from the United States .or any other country. What we are seeking to do is to have that stone finished and further manufactured in Canada, and we believe that this change will have the effect of building up the stone-cutting industry and, by indirection, I believe, although that view is not concurred in by some gentlemen on my own side of the House, it will have the effect of assisting in the development of the stone quarries of Can-da. I feel that I am on safe ground this afternoon for several Teasons. In the first place, I am sure of the facts myself, and in the second place, we have had a great

diversity of view on the other side of the House. We have had one hon. member contending that there should be no tariff upon stone, another, that the proposed changes should not be made, and some others on my own side, and I think one, by suggestion, at all events, upon the other side, putting forward the view that the tariff increases had not gone far enough and that they 'should be extended so as to give further protection to the quarry industry. I have adopted the middle course, the course which, I think, should recommend itself to this committee, and I therefore submit that this tariff change is reasonable and neither extreme nor prohibitive. An average duty of thirty per cent can not be regarded, under the conditions that exist in Canada to-day, as prohibitive. If my hon. friend will look at the tariff which he approved when he was a member of the late Government, he will find that thirty per cent was not regarded as a prohibitive rate. Why should he now say that it is a prohibitive rate? I absolutely deny that it is prohibitive.


Frank Oliver: Is there not a vast difference between thirty per cent on stone and thirty per cent, say, on cotton?


William Thomas White: As the tariff goes, thirty per cent is not a prohibitive rate, and this will not have the effect of prohibiting the use of cut stone in Canada. It ought, as a matter of fact, rather to increase the use of cut stone in Canada by building up stonecutting industries here.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
315. Carbons over six inches in circumference or outside measurement and not exceeding thirty-five inches in circumference or outside measurement-British preferential, free ; intermediate, free; general, free.
315a. Carbon electrodes exceeding thirty-five inches in circumference or outside measurement 

British preferential, 12& per cent; intermediate, 20 per cent; general, 20 per cent.
['As the tariff goes, thirty per cent is not a prohibitive rate, and this will not have the effect of prohibiting the use of cut stone in Canada. It ought, as a matter of fact, rather to increase the use of cut stone in Canada by building up stonecutting industries here.']
Frank Oliver: Is this a ehange?


William Thomas White: Under item 315 of the present Customs tariff, carbons over six inches in circumference are on the free list. The change that we propose in this item is that carbons over six inches in circumference or outside measurement, and not exceeding thirty-five inches in circumference or outside measurement, shall be on the free list. Carbons over thirty-five inches and under six inches in circumference come under the next item, 315a, and are subject to a duty of twenty per cent. In this item 315 I desire to change the

word ' six ' in the first line to ' three,' so that the item will read:
Carbons over three inches in circumference or outside measurement and not exceeding thirty-five inches in circumference or outside measurement-free.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Does that enlarge the free list?


William Thomas White: That enlarges the free list in so far as this particular modification is concerned. The reason for the change is to encourage the manufacture of these electrodes at Welland.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is there any increase in tariff under item 315a ?


William Thomas White: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why make a distinction between the two carbons, under and over 35 inches respectively ?


William Thomas White: Because the carbon electrodes exceeding 35 inches in circumference or outside measurement are now manufactured in Canada by the Electric Metals Limited of Welland. I am sorry that the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) is not here. He could give us a very lucid explanation of this matter.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why place these carbons on the free list down to 3 inches ?


William Thomas White: The reason we left the 3 inches is because carbons used for electric lights are subject under item 316 to 35 per cent n.o.p. The rates of duty are now as follows: On electric carbons and carbon points, n.o.p., 35 per cent; carbons between 3 and 35 inches, on the free list; carbons over 35 inches, subject to a duty of 20 per cent, the reason being that carbon electrodes over 35 inches are now manufactured at Welland in sufficient quantities to supply the needs of the country.


Mr. MURPHY:: By whom are they used?


William Thomas White: In electric furnaces. They are capable of producing intense heat. They may be used even in the smelting of steel. They are used by the American Cyanamid Company to make calcium nitrate, which is made from nitrogen and lime. They are also used in electric furnaces for the purpose of making certain chemicals or even for the smelting of steel.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
353a. Aluminum leaf or foil-British preferential, free; intermediate, free; general, free.
['In electric furnaces. They are capable of producing intense heat. They may be used even in the smelting of steel. They are used by the American Cyanamid Company to make calcium nitrate, which is made from nitrogen and lime. They are also used in electric furnaces for the purpose of making certain chemicals or even for the smelting of steel.']
Mr. GRAHAM:: Does that put something else on the dutiable list ?


William Thomas White: This article, aluminum leaf or foil, is used to make decalcomania transfers which are subject under item 180 to a duty of 15 per cent under the preferential tariff and 22j per cent under the general tariff. It is also a competitive article as a wrapper with tinfoil, which is on the free list.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
327a. Silvered lenses for automobile lamps- British preferential, 10 per cent; intermediate, 15 per cent; general, 15 per cent.
['This article, aluminum leaf or foil, is used to make decalcomania transfers which are subject under item 180 to a duty of 15 per cent under the preferential tariff and 22j per cent under the general tariff. It is also a competitive article as a wrapper with tinfoil, which is on the free list.']
William Thomas White: The reason for this change is that we desire to encourage the manufacture of automobile lamps in Canada, because these lenses are not manufactured here at present. There are some manufacturers in Hamilton who think they can increase their manufacture of automobile lamps if these silvered lenses are allowed to come in at a lower rate, and therefore we have reduced the duty from 30 to 15 per cent.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is a ease
where you encourage manufacturing by reducing the duty?


William Thomas White: That may be said, but there is another feature in it. The duty on brass is being restored for a reason that I mentioned in my Budget speech. These manufacturers will have to pay a little more for their brass, and this is a small concession which I think will be useful to them in connection with their manufacture.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
361. Gold and silver leaf; Dutch or schlag metal leaf; brocade and bronze powders-British preferential, 15 per cent; intermediate, 27J per cent; general, 275 per cent.
['That may be said, but there is another feature in it. The duty on brass is being restored for a reason that I mentioned in my Budget speech. These manufacturers will have to pay a little more for their brass, and this is a small concession which I think will be useful to them in connection with their manufacture.']
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is there any
change?


William Thomas White: This is the same item with the aluminum leaf, which is dealt with in the previous item, left out. #


Henry Robert Emmerson: In the order of the
Items the next is 375. Referring to the Customs Tariff of 1907, item 372, we find a reference to basic furnace slag. I do not wish to take up the time of the committee at present in discussing this matter; but when we are considering the Bill on its second reading, I propose to offer an amendment relating to that item on basic slag, and also with respect to item 663 which treats of fertilizers, compounded or manufactured.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
198*
375. Iron in pigs, iron kentledge, and cast scrap iron; ferrosilicon containing not more than fifteen per cent silicon; ferromanganese and spiegeleisen, containing not more than fifteen per cent manganese per ton-British preferential, $1.50; intermediate, $2.50; general, $2.50.
['In the order of the\nItems the next is 375. Referring to the Customs Tariff of 1907, item 372, we find a reference to basic furnace slag. I do not wish to take up the time of the committee at present in discussing this matter; but when we are considering the Bill on its second reading, I propose to offer an amendment relating to that item on basic slag, and also with respect to item 663 which treats of fertilizers, compounded or manufactured.']
Mr. MACDONALD:: There is a change in the intermediate tariff?


William Thomas White: Yes, but I do not thjnk it affects the Canadian situation. In many of the tariff changes that I have made I have equalized the intermediate with the general. Personally I have never seen any advantage in our having the intermediate tariff. I do not think the change to $2.50 in the intermediate tariff will have any bearing at all upon our importations.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What was it before?


William Thomas White: 


William John Macdonald: The minister was
asked to deal with this particular item by those interested in this industry?


William Thomas White: The steel industry?


William John Macdonald: Yes. A year ago there was an application to the minister to continue the bounty upon pig-iron. Did the minister consider that question, and what were his reasons for refusing to do anything for pig-iron by way of bounty?


William Thomas White: We have had several applications from iron and steel manufacturers, not for any specific form of assistance, but to take some tariff action that would be of advantage to the industry. If my hon. friend will-as I have no doubt he has- look over the legislation which I am bringing down now he will find that there are many changes which will inure to the advantage of the industry. But as to the ground upon which we refused to renew the bounties to the steel industries-which I understand to be his question-I may say that no application has been before the Government for a continuance of the bounties upon iron and steel during the past year or two. The more recent applications have been along the line of placing a tariff upon wire rods and taking authority to the Governor in Council to increase the duty on structural iron and steel of the heavier weights rather than for a renewal of bounties. I said in my Budget Speech, and I say now to the hon. gentleman, because he was not present on that occasion, that while I know there is a difference of opinion among members of this House and among the public with respect to the propriety of



granting bounties, my own opinion is that bounties are justifiable in certain cases. Capital is always timid. There are always risks in connection with the establishment of a large new industry. In the case of the iron industry, as the hon. gentleman knows, each one presents its own problems, and it may be that even the best-conceived scheme will encounter vicissitudes of fortune in its early years causing capital to undergo very serious risks. The result is that capital is timid about embarking upon large new enterprises unless there is some Government assistance. My view is that the Government is justified in granting bounties in proper cases for the purpose of calling industries into beingwhichotherwi-e would not be started or which might be delayed in establishment for many years. Consequently, I have never seen any reason to disagree with the policy of the late Government in granting bounties to call into existence the *steel industry at Sydney. There are differences of opinion, as I say, but I am giving my own view. But after an industry has been established, and has enjoyed for many years the advantage of bounties, I think at should be allowed to stand upon its own basis. It would be evidence to mo that the bounties had failed of effect if, after having been enjoyed for many years by an industry which has advantages in the way of raw material which would put it upon a par with similar industries in any part of the world, a continuance of tho bounties' should be required. If any assistance were required for such an industry I would rather give it by means of a tariff change. To more particularly answer my hon,. friend, the question of continuance or renewal of bounties has not been actively before the Government for some considerable time.


William John Macdonald: I wish to know in
regard to the particular item of pig-iron, was there any request for a duty upon it?


William Thomas White: No specific request for a duty on pig-iron to my recollection.
At six o'clock, the Committee took recess.
The Committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.


William John Macdonald: If I remember correctly, the minister, speaking about pig-iron in his Budget speech, said that in his opinion it was not desirable that there 
should be any increase in duty. What is the minister's view with regard to the matter?


William Thomas White: I said-I am speaking from recollection-that my view was that the duty upon pig-iron, which is raw material to many manufacturers, should have a moderate protection; otherwise the duties upon many articles, such as agricultural implements, stoves and a great variety of other products, would have to be raised by reason of the increase in the duty upon pig-iron. If I recollect my words aright, I said that I believed that had been the view of most of my predecessors in' reference to the matter of duties upon pig-iron.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
375a. Ferrosilicon containing more than fifteen per cent silicon per ton-British preferential, $3; intermediate, $4.50; general, $4.50.
["I said-I am speaking from recollection-that my view was that the duty upon pig-iron, which is raw material to many manufacturers, should have a moderate protection; otherwise the duties upon many articles, such as agricultural implements, stoves and a great variety of other products, would have to be raised by reason of the increase in the duty upon pig-iron. If I recollect my words aright, I said that I believed that had been the view of most of my predecessors in' reference to the matter of duties upon pig-iron."]
William Thomas White: There is a change in the duties upon ferrosilicon, ferromanganese and spiegeleisen, which are dealt with in items 375 and 375a, The duty upon ferrosilicon containing more than 15 per cent of silicon is increased to the extent of $2 a ton. The reason for the increase is that ferrosilicon is now manufactured in Canada by the Electro Metals, Limited, of Guelph. It is quoted in Pittsburg at about $70 a ton; $4.50 a ton is therefore a moderate tariff, about 6 per cent. Under item 375b, ferromanganese and spiegeleisen containing more than 15 per cent manganese have been placed upon the free list. Formerly these were dutiable at $2.50 a ton, general tariff. The reason for the change is that ferromanganese and spiegeleisen, which are practically the same commodity, are not manufactured in Canada, and are used in connection with the steel industry. I may say that those engaged in the steel industry are entirely content with these tariff changes.


Mr. NESBITT:: What is the use of ferrosilicon?


William Thomas White: It is used in the making
of steel.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I take that ferrosilicon
containing more than fifteen per cent silicon is used in the manufacture of a higher grade of steel?


William Thomas White: That is what I understand.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
378a. Galvanized rolled hoop iron or hoop steel, numbers twelve and thirteen gauge, per

ton-British preferential, $4.25; intermediate, $7 ; general, $7.
Mr. WHITE; We are reducing the duty in this case from thirty per cent general to a specific tariff of $7 a ton, which is about the equivalent to seventeen and one-half per cent ad valorem. The reason is this; the manufacturers of barrels complained that the galvanized rolled hoop iron or hoop steel coming in upon barrels which, of course, are in competition with their production, were dutiable at the rate of thirty per cent, whereas the general tariff upon barrels is only twenty-five per cent. This is to remedy this anomaly in the tariff by equalizing the duty payable upon imported wooden barrels, and to place the manufacturer of barrels in as favourable a position as his competitors in respect of galvanized rolled hoop iron or hoop steel.
['That is what I understand.']
William John Macdonald: Did the minister
have any request from the iron and steel manufacturers to deal with item 378, bar steel, etc.? Were there not allegations that the tariff was not satisfactory?


William Thomas White: It has been brought to our attention, although I can hardly say at what particular time or times in the past year and a half that it might be desirable to increase the general tariff rate upon bar steel; but my hon. friend probably realizes that $7 a ton is a fairly substantial duty, giving a protection oi 25 per cent to 35 per cent on these several items. My hon. friend will also, no doubt, realize that dealing with such an item as that in the tariff would involve changes running through a considerable part of the steel schedule. Something may possibly be said for that in the case of a general revision, but so far we have been unable to reach the view that the duty of $7 per ton should be increased, taking into consideration all the matters that would be involved in the case.


William John Macdonald: $4.25 is the duty under the British preference, which is a very low ad valorem rate.


William Thomas White: I agree that the Eritish preferential is low compared with the general tariff, and it is possible that on a general revision something might be done with that; but we have felt that as this is not a general revision of the tariff, it is inexpedient to deal with that item on which a reasonable degree of protection would seem to be afforded so far as the general tariff is concerned.
198*


William John Macdonald: What about 377 and 379, angles and girders?


William Thomas White: The same consideration arises in connection with 377. My hon. friend was probably here the other evening when I took authority to the Governor in Council to raise that duty to $7 a ton upon what are called merchantable products of 120 lbs. per lineal yard or less, when the Government was satisfied that they were being manufactured in Canada.


William John Macdonald: That is structural steel.


William Thomas White: When the Government is satisfied that these will be manufactured in substantial quantities in Canada, and I think possibly the steel industry which is in my hon. friend's constituency may be in a position in time to take advantage of that. Up to the present there has been a duty of $7 per ton upon these products up to 35 lbs. per lineal yard. The reason why that distinction was made in the tariff of 1907 was that such products up to 35 lbs. were manufactured in Canada, hut not beyond that weight. I am in hopes that within the next year and a half or two years plants will be established at the Sault, and possibly at New Glasgow, Sydney and Hamilton, capable of manufacturing structural steel up to 120 lbs. per lineal yard. As soon as the Government is satisfied that structural steel up to that weight can be manufactured in Canada, the increased duty will- come into effect. It is possible that some other adjustments of the tariff may have to be made by reason of that change when it comes into effect. For instance, the manufacturers of bridges are interested in this duty upon structural steel. The matter has received a great deal of attention on the part of the Government, particularly of myself; and we realize the importance of the steel industry as well as the necessity of giving a reasonable degree of protection as soon as the industry is in a position to show that it is reasonably in a position to meet the requirements of the Canadian business.


William John Macdonald: Was it represented to the minister that it is proposed to make what is known as structural steel of the size spoken of in the Sault or any other place?


William Thomas White: The representations were
first made to me, I think, by the president of the Algoma -Steel Company, Mr. Frater
3isr

Taylor, of London. The position is that they realize the desirability of broadening the basis of their production. I think that is realized by every steel plant in Canada. During the past three years they have all been busily engaged in the manufacture of steel rails, and I think they will continue to have large orders for rails because, as I said in the Budget speech, railways will always be building in Canada, and the demand for steel rails will be large and continuous! But it is desirable that the steel companies should broaden the basis of their production, and the Algoma Steel Company had evidently reached that conclusion. They therefore stated that if assurances could be given on behalf of the Government that as soon as they were in a 'position to produce merchant mill products of 120 lbs. per lineal yard and less the duty would be increased to |7 a ton, the rate which now applied to the same product up to 35 lbs. per lineal yard, they could get the capital to enable them to increase their plant and enlarge their merchant mill to turn out that heavier class of product. During the year I have had talks with representatives of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company and the Nova Scotia Steel Company. I understand that they, too, in due course of time will be in a position to avail themselves of the benefits of that increased tariff when it comes into operation. I think the New Glasgow company is manufacturing steel products now up to 50 or 60 lbs. per lineal yard, but in what quantities I am unable to say.


George Perry Graham: I would like to ask the minister with reference to an establishment in the town of Morrisburg. A few years ago an industry was established there for the manufacture of tin plate, and if I remember correctly they applied to the Government for the imposition of a small duty on their product. The Government, however, did net see its wax clear to grant that request and since that time the industry has passed into other hands. I was informed that the new owners contemplated manufacturing steel barrels. Does my hon. friend remember any application, in connection with that industry?


Mr WHITE:: I do not recall any application of the kind mentioned by my hon. friend. I would ask him if he is certain that they made any application with reference to the tariff. I am unable at the moment to say what the duty on steel barrels is, but I think they would have a sub-
CMr. W. T. White.]
stantial degree of protection under the tariff as it exists to-day, I may be wrong in that. However, I shall be very glad to look into the matter.


John Dowsley Reid: I heard some time ago that this industry was xo be reorganized, and that they were to manufacture steel barrels. I heard it from a gentleman who, I understood, had an interest in the company, but I have no recollection of any application being made with respect to the tariff. If there had been any great desire we should probably have heard aibout it, but. as we have heard nothing of it, at all events during the last two or three months, I do not think any application could have been made.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I know something about that. One man has the power and another man has the building. They do not .agree. The man that has the building cannot manufacture without the power, and the man with the power will not sell it because he has it leased to an American firm.


John Dowsley Reid: That would have nothing to do with an application in regard to the tariff.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If their product is galvanized steel barrels it is protected now under the item of galvanized sheets, is it not?


William John Macdonald: As I may not lie here later, might I ask the minister now with reference to item 1,019 which reads:
When imported by proprietors of coke ovens and converted at their coke ovens into coke for use in the smelting of metals from ores and in the melting of metals.
The drawback on bituminous coal would be 99 per cent. Do I understand that the effect of that is that persons can establish a coke industry, import coal, make it into coke and be entitled to the drawback if they sell the coke to persons .in the iron and steel industry or the smelting industry, or, must it be consumed on the premises?


William Thomas White: I think I can explain
best by stating the present position. My hon. friend knows that to-day coke is on the free list for all purposes. That means that a manufacturer of coke at Buffalo, having of course his bituminous coal free, can manufacture and sell his coke to any person in Canada free of duty. He can sell it to parties who are engaged in the smelting of metal ores-iron and steel
April 30,1914
3i3r
manufacturers-and to foundrymen engaged in the melting of metals. Under the present tariff it is not possible for a Canadian manufacturer of coke to obtain the drawback upon the bituminous coal which he imports to be used in the manufacture of his product, if he sells that product to a foundryman engaged in business next door or in some adjacent town. That seems an anomaly, and the matter was drawn especially to our attention by the proposed establishment of a coke industry in Hamilton. It was represented to us that if the tariff were not changed, a firm would establish in Buffalo and sell its coke in the Hamilton district to those requiring it for smelting purposes or for the melting of metal. If, on the other hand, a drawback would be allowed-which it was represented to us would not in any way adversely affect the coal industry of Canada-in which I know my hon. friend from Pietou takes a special interest-the plant would be established in Hamilton. We gave this matter very careful and earnest consideration, consulting some of those engaged in the coal industry, and we came to the conclusion that the coal industry of Nova Scotia would not in any way be adversely affected, because we are limiting the drawback provision to bituminous coal imported by
Proprietors of coke ovens and converted at their coke ovens into coke for use in the smelting of metals from ores and in the melting of metals.
That does not enable a man to engage in the general coke industry in Canada and get a drawback on bituminous coal. It limits the output in respect of which a drawback is granted to such product as is used by iron and steel manufacturers and foundrymen. After giving the matter very careful consideration, and bearing in mind what I am sure my hon. friend has in mind-that we did not desire in any way to prejudice or interfere with.the coal industry of Nova Scotia-we came to the conclusion that this drawback item might be safely inserted in the tariff I think the result will be that a large industry, which would otherwise Ibe located in the United States, will now be located in Canada, and it is probable that other industries may similarly establish themselves. This particular industry will sell its coke to the steel industry of Canada for use in the smelting of metals, and also to
those engaged in the foundry business for the melting of metals.


William John Macdonald: What I understand
is that hereafter it will be possible for a person desiring to make coke or to import coal, get a drawback of 99 per cent upon it, and dispose of its product, the coke, to-parties engaged in the iron or steel business, or in the melting of metals, and he does not need to consume it on his particular premises where the coke has been made which has been the limitation heretofore imposed?


William Thomas White: No, it is extended beyond the present drawback provision in that regard.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I would like to ask the
minister if he has had any representations from the gas people who have been trying for years to get a drawback on their bituminous coal and who sell coke, which is a by-product of their manufacture, to the ordinary citizen.


William Thomas White: I confess that I am more puzzled than usual in talking to the Opposition on this question because I do not know where they stand on questions of fiscal policy. I wish my hon. friend from Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) would discuss this question with my hon. friend from Pietou (Mr. Macdonald). It might be found that there was a very grave difference of opinion between them on this point. My hon, friend from North Oxford would like to see a drawback on bituminous coal used in the manufacture of gas. I do not desire to express the views of the hon. member for Pietou, who is quite capable of expressing them for himself, but I imagine that this raises a question as to whether it might not interfere seriously with the coal industry of Nova Scotia which sells its 'bituminous coal in all the eastern cities and some of whose product is used for the manufacture of gas. It is a question upon which I do not desire to express any opinion except to say that the Government has not reached the conclusion that the drawback provision should be extended beyond tne limits of the item. If the hon. member for North Oxford wilt take the matter up with the hon. member for Pietou, and if they will come to me with their reasoned conclusions and tell me that they have both agreed upon a common policy in that regard, I will be very glad to receive their representations, but whether I will act upon them is a different matter.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: I would almost rather trust the minister alone than rely

upon the combined advice of my hon. friends.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not see any ground for disagreement between the hon. member for Pictou and myself. The hon. gentleman knows that the Nova Scotia people do not sell any coal west of Ottawa.


William Thomas White: No, but they do in Montreal.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If we were to open Canada to the competition of the American coal fields, the Nova Scotia people would sell where they do now just the same. I do not think it would make a cent's worth of difference to them. It is absolutely impossible for them to reach the western Ontario market, as the minister knows.


William John Macdonald: I notice that if the minister is asked a question which is embarrassing, he resorts to this little joke about some fanciful difference of opinion on the other side of the House. I would remind the hon. gentleman that he happens to be the responsible party in regard to these questions; he is the one to settle the policy of the Government, and there is no reason why he should not take the full responsibility.


William Thomas White: I have always been willing, [DOT]and I am willing now, to take the full responsibility. I agree with my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) absolutely in stating that the matter would be very much better in my hands than in the joint hands of the hon. member for Pictou and the hon. member for North Oxford, notwithstanding the great respect which I have for both these hon. gentlemen.


William John Macdonald: Then the minister is coming around to the ideas of my hon. friend from Red Deer?


William Thomas White: The hon. member for Red Deer, at all events, expresses his opinions openly and with conviction upon tariff questions. The hon. member for North Oxford is right in saying that Nova Scotia coal does not go into Ontario and does not reach the West. On the other hand it does reach Montreal. There is no doubt that the coal industry of Nova Scotia has to be seriously and carefully considered-and very properly so-in connection with any proposed tariff changes, especially those which may be of far-reaching consequences. The Nova Scotia coal companies sell their products in Montreal and in the larger cities of the East. If a drawback were

allowed upon bituminous coal used for the production of illuminating gas in these cities, there is no doubt that to that extent the Nova Scotia coal industry would feel the influence of the American competition. I am not passing any opinion upon the merits of this matter, but the tariff item that is now before the committee represents the limits which the Government feels itself at present justified in going in regard to the matter of dravrbacks.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I am not pressing it at all; I am only asking if the Government had representations from the gas companies.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
410. Coil chain, coil chain links including repair links, and chain shackles, of iron or steel, one and one-eighth of an inch in diameter and over-British preferential, free ; intermediate, 5 per cent; general, 5 per cent.
['I am not pressing it at all; I am only asking if the Government had representations from the gas companies.']
William Stewart Loggie: I desire to call the attention of the minister to this item in connection with the following item, 410a:
Coil chain, coil chain links including repair links, and chain shackles, of iron or steel, n.o.p.-British preferential, 15 per cent; intermediate, 20 per cent; general, 20 per cent.
May I ask the minister why he makes a difference between chain one and one-eighth of an inch in diameter or over, and chain of a less diameter? He has increased the rate of duties on chain five-sixteenth and up to one and one-eighth inch in diameter three times. The rate was five per cent before, and he has increased the intermediate rate from seven and one-half to twenty per cent, and the general tariff from ten per cent to twenty per cent. I would ask the minister if he has considered this. At the present time the minister gives a small drawback for the construction of vessels engaged in the coastwise or fishing trade, and he does this in the interests of the fisheries. He is now doubling the cost of a very important item in connection with the construction of these vessels. He makes no provision in the way of a drawback for the difference in duty. I think it is due to the fishing industry that the minister should consider the matter. On chain coming from Great Britain under the British preference he makes the duty fifteen per cent instead of five per cent. Cables and chains are used very largely in the development of the fishing industry and it seems to me that he might very fairly increase the drawback because this is g oing to largely increase the cost of every ne't vessel constructed.


William Thomas White: In respect to the distinction that is drawn between chain 1J inch in diameter and over and chain which is under 1J inch in diameter, I may say that the heavier chain is not manufactured in Canada.


William Stewart Loggie: I assumed that that was the reason.


William Thomas White: Chain under li inch in
diameter is manufactured in Canada and the reason why we have increased the tariff upon the chain that is made in Canada is because we have increased the duty upon wire rods. Wire rods were formerly on the free list and we have imposed a duty upon them. There was also item 720-really an Order in Council-which has been repealed. The Order in Council to which I refer, read as follows:
Iron or steel rods rolled or drawn, not less than 5/16 of an inch in diameter, when imported bl manufacturers of chain for use by them in the manufacture of chain in their own factories, is placed upon the free list.
We have been anxious to establish the steel industry of Canada upon a firm foundation; and in order to do this, we have placed a duty of $3.50 per ton upon wire rods. We have repealed this Order in Council which I have just read, and then we have adopted a uniform rate with regard to item 410a. There were formerly two tariff items respecting these articles, as my hon. friend is aware. One was: British preferential, five per cent; intermediate, seven and one-half per cent, and general, ten per cent. The other was>:	British
preferential, twenty per cent; intermediate, twenty-seven and one-half per cent, and general, thirty per cent. In the case of chains under five-sixteenths of an inch in diameter, the rate was thirty per cent under item 454. We have made item 410a, British preferential, fifteen per cent; intermediate, twenty per cent; general, twenty per cent, so that, while there has been an increase, there has also been a reduction. My hon. friend will observe from item 410 that we have reduced the tariff upon chain, one and one-eighth of an inch in diameter and over, which at present is five per cent under the British preferential and ten per cent under the general, to British preferential, free and general, five per cent. The change has been brought about by reason of the fact that we have placed a duty upon wire rods. It is one of the adjustments rendered necessary by these changes in the tariff.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Why does the minister
exempt telephone wires, item 404?


William Thomas White: There would seem to be no good reason why, if there is a duty upon wire rods, there should not be a duty upon telephone and telegraph wire drawn from these rods. The exemption that I have made is upon wire used in wire fencing. Under the tariff as amended by these resolutions, the drawback applies to that wire only. It is a minor matter so far as telephone wires are concerned.


William Stewart Loggie: The minister has advised us that he has reduced the rates on one and one-eighth inch chain and also on chain under five-sixteenths of an inch. The sizes between those two are the sizes used in the construction of vessels.


William Thomas White: There is an increase in the duty on the sizes between those two.


William Stewart Loggie: Yes, a very material increase. The law now provides that we get a rebate to provide for the duty, but you do not provide any increase in the rebate when you treble the duty on chain used in the construction of vessels.


William Thomas White: What is the drawback in respect to vessels?


William Stewart Loggie: I do not know; but I
know, if you are constructing vessels, you get a drawback of so much per ton because of this duty paid on the material entering into their construction.	.


William Thomas White: I will look into the matter to which my hon. friend has drawn my attention. As to whether or not I can do anything in the matter, I am not at present able to say.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I want to congratulate
the minister on what he has done in regard to item 404 on wire fencing. It will stop a great deal of deception to the poor old farmer and allow him to get wire fencing of the size that it is supposed to be.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
411. Malleable sprocket chain, and link belting chain of steel, when imported by manufacturers of agricultural implements for use in the manufacture of such implements in their own factories-British preferential, free; intermediate, free; general, free.
['I want to congratulate\nthe minister on what he has done in regard to item 404 on wire fencing. It will stop a great deal of deception to the poor old farmer and allow him to get wire fencing of the size that it is supposed to be.']
George Perry Graham: Is there any change?


William Thomas White: No. We have put these on the free list when imported by manufacturers for use in the manufacture of such implements in their own factories. When not imported as above proposed, the rates in the event of a change would be under 454, in which the British preferential is twenty per cent, and the general thirty

per cent. This malleable sprocket chain is now manufactured in Canada from dutiable material. We have made no change in the importations for agricultural implements.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
445. Mowing machines, harvesters, self-binding or without binders, binding attachments, reapers, and complete parts thereof, not including shafting or malleable iron castings, also finished parts for repairs of the machines specified in this item-British preferential, 12 J per cent; intermediate, 12J per cent; general, 12£ Per cent.
['No. We have put these on the free list when imported by manufacturers for use in the manufacture of such implements in their own factories. When not imported as above proposed, the rates in the event of a change would be under 454, in which the British preferential is twenty per cent, and the general thirty', 'per cent. This malleable sprocket chain is now manufactured in Canada from dutiable material. We have made no change in the importations for agricultural implements.']
Edward Walter Nesbitt: It has frequently been represented by manufacturers that the former duty of 174 per cent was just sufficient to pay the difference in the freight from Toronto and Chicago to the West. I thought I would look up that matter, and I found that the difference in the freight was as follows. Let us take as an illustration a binder that is of the average weight of 1,550 pounds. In carload lots, the rate from Chicago to Calgary is $1.13 per 100 lb., so that the freight on a binder would be $17.52. On the same basis, the rate from Toronto to Chicago would be $1.20 per cwt., which would make the freight on a binder $18.60, a difference of $1.08 as between Chicago and Toronto. Binders are shipped from those points entirely in carload lots, not singly. If the manufacturers do not have sufficient hinders to ship a carload to a central point, the railway company will allow carload rates on goods of the same classification. I mention that to the minister to show him that the idea of the difference in the freight is a fallacy.


William Thomas White: I never put forward the contention that seventeen and one-half per cent duty represented the difference in the freight.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I did not say that the minister had done so. I said that a great many people had.


William Thomas White: I have looked very careiully into the question of freight charges. For a period of over a year and a half or two years I have been giving very full and careful consideration to the question of the duty upon agricultural implements. In view of the statement made here the other night by my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) with regard to the rates on binders at Minneapolis, I desire to place upon ' Hansard,' for the information of the House, a statement as to *be difference

between the freight rates from Chicago to Canadian points and to American points opposite Canadian points, and from Toronto or Hamilton to points in the Northwest.
I find that the freight charges upon an eight-foot binder are as follows:
From Chicago to-
Minneapolis	$ 3 90
Fargo, N.D	
8	19Grand Forks, N.D	
9	16Valley City, N.D	
10	14St. Thomas, N.D	
10	53Devil's Lake, N.D	'.	11 31St. John, N.D	
12	48Rocklake, N.D	
12	4SSarles, N.D	
12	48Lansford, N.D	
1287Minot,_N.D	
12	87Gardiena, N.D	
12	87Williston, N.D	
14	82Havre, Mont	
2281Great Falls, Mont	23 01Billings, Mont	, .. ..	2184Winnipeg	
10	53Brandon	
12	09Weyburn	
15	79Regina	,. .. 16 18Calgary	
2203Edmonton	
22	03
From Hamilton to-
Winnipeg	 1280
Brandon	 1440
Weyburn	
17	40Regina	
17	80Calgary	
24.00Edmonton	7. .. 24 00
I looked into the. question and I found that the Canadian manufacturer, speaking generally, is at a disadvantage compared with his American competitor so far as freight rates are concerned. The rates from Hamilton, to Winnipeg district-because the Northwest is divided into districts for the purpose of selling agricultural implements' -are higher than rates from Chicago to points in which they are in competition) with the manufacturers here. The 'Canadian manufacturer has iwo disadvantages. The first is that his cost of production is higher than the cost of production in Chicago Or other American points, for the reason that as the House is aware, the cost of production, is in inverse ratio to tonnage; the greater the tonnage, the lower the cost of production.


George Perry Graham: That holds good up to a certain point.	-


William Thomas White: It holds good until you
reach the maximum production of your plant.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is just it.


William Thomas White: But my hon. friend is aware that modem plants are capable of turning out enormous tonnage.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: How about the
Canadian plants of American concerns?


William Thomas White: The hon. gentleman has
asked a very pertinent question, and I am glad to deal with it, for I do not wish to discuss this matter in a political way but rather in an economic or business way. The International Harvester Company has an establishment at Hamilton. The tangible property in Canada of that concern amounts to about $4,000,000. It has a very large plant in 'Chicago. We looked very carefully into the question of the cost of production at Hamilton and at Chicago and found a very substantial difference in favour of Chicago by reason of the greater tonnage turned out there. Speaking from recollection, the difference was either $7 or $9 upon an eight-foot binder.
I have in my desk-I am sorry I have not it here now-the statement made by Mr. Fielding, my predecessor,
9	p.m. in this House a few years ago, in discussing a motion to reduce the duties on agricultural implements. That statement applies to-day as it did then. I will state generally what he said, and can quote his words later. He said he had brought that industry to Canada, and he thought it would be unfortunate in the extreme if by any action taken by the Parliament of Canada in reducing or abolishing the duty, the discontinuance of manufacture of agricultural implements in Hamilton were brought about; and it would be obvious to all that if the cost of production was higher in Hamilton than in Chicago and there were no protection in this market for the concerns engaged in this manufacture, the business would be transferred to Chicago, making the cost even less by the increase of the tonnage. In other words, the International Harvester Company would not maintain itself in the city of Hamilton in the manufacture of agricultural implements at a cost in 'excess of what it could manufacture for in Chicago if the Canadian market were open to it equally with the market of the United States.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Did they give
these figures?


William Thomas White: I sent a representative from my office to look into the factory cost in both places. In addition to that, as
long ago as December, 1912, I asked the Commissioner of Customs to send a representative to our Canadian manufacurers of agricultural implements and to those engaged in the business in the United States, and also to their agents along the border, with a view to ascertaining as accurately as possible the difference in the selling price of agricultural implements on either side of the line. That report was made. It contains a good deal of matter that is confidential, and necessarily so, because our agent was given access to the books and was treated in a very fair fashion by all the manufacurers. I have in my possession a record of the selling prices which might form a basis of comparison for points in Canada with points in the United States, where freight rates are at all equal, I mention this ' to show that the matter has received very careful and full consideration- on the part of the Government.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Could the minister make that statement part of his remarks by handing it to ' Hansard.' Would there be any objection to that ?


William Thomas White: No, I think not. I am as anxious as my hon. friend is to deal with the matter fairly. For, after all, it is a business matter. There is an enormous amount of capital invested-a great deal of it English capital-in the manufacture of agricultural implements in Canada, particularly in Ontario. So far as the East is concerned, there is very little difference in the price of agricultural implements on either side of the line. The statement which I will give the committee, which is taken from the report made by Mr. Costello, a very trusted and, I believe, competent official of the Customs Department, gives the following as comparative prices cash on delivery of eight-foot binders:
United States: Fargo, $147.50 ; Grand Forks, $147.50; Valley City, $150 ; Devil's Lake, $150; Lansford, $160 ; Minot, $160 ; Gardiena, $160 ; Williston, $165; Havre, Mont., $190; Great Falls, $190; Billings, $190.
Canada:	Winnipeg, $160; Brandon, $160;
Weyburn, $165; Regina, $165; Calgary, $170; Edmonton, $170.
The difference, therefore, would run from $10 down in favour of the price at the American points. The committee will bear in mind two things that I have mentioned: first, that the Canadian manufacturer is at a disadvantage in respect of freight rates, which are higher from Toronto or Hamilton to the Canadian West than they are from

Chicago. Second, the cost of production in Hamilton, as shown by the returns of the International Harvester Company, are considerably higher in that city than they are in Chicago. Bearing these two facts in mind, the committee will have one explanation at least for the fact that the cash price of agricultural implements is somewhat higher in the Canadian West than it is across the line.


Mr. McCOIG:: The hon. gentleman has quoted the price of eight-foot binders at different points. Are these binders not turned out with different attachments at the different points?


William Thomas White: A statement which I have here in that regard says that the Canadian manufacturers of binders' supply an extra equipment consisting of a knife, etc., valued at about $7. This extra equipment is not supplied in the United States.


Archibald Blake McCoig: The binders supplied by Chicago firms are equipped with only one knife, whereas the Canadian manufacturers supply an extra knife. In some cases with the American binders one may obtain a pole truck for $15 extra, and a transport truck for $10 extra.


William Thomas White: The comparative figures
which I have given are in each case for an eight-foot binder; I understand that the Canadian machine, at the price which I have mentioned, carries an extra knife and certain other equipment valued at $7, which is not carried by the American binder. In answer to inquiries made, telegrams have been received from the following firms in North Dakota, stating the cash retail selling price of eight-foot binders:	Lewis and
Durocher, St. John, $155; Aitkens and Lea, Rocklake, $155; D. G. McIntosh, St. Thomas, $155; Hazelett and Naismith, Sarles, $160.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does the International Harvester Company of Hamilton export binders?


William Thomas White: A very small portion of
their output is for export; their export business is done from Chicago. Last year was not, of course, as good a year for the manufacturer of binders and other agricultural implements as the year before. The manufacturers expected a much larger business than they enjoyed, and as a consequence they are carrying very heavy inventories. It is by no means certain that this year the business will not be less than last year. I 
have taken the trouble to look very carefully into the whole situation and to examine, as I stated in my Budget speech, into the balance sheets of some of these representative concerns, and it seems to me that this year their cost of production is undoubtedly higher than it was a year and a half ago when the investigation was made by the Government, because with a reduced output the cost of production is increased.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is true of the American manufacturers also last year.


William Thomas White: That would be true of the American manufacturers; of course they have a very much larger market.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: But they are carrying large inventories.


William Thomas White: They are probably carrying large inventories, but they have not as large an amount of indebtedness upon their books as the firms doing business in Canada. I was surprised to find that one large concern doing business in Canada had oveT $30,000,000 cash, owing to them, a -considerable part of it overdue, in respect of agricultural implements .sold during the last three, four or five years.


Mr. EDWARDS:: What is the valuation for duty of mowers, binders and reapers? Has any change in the valuation for duty purposes been made, or is any change contemplated?


William Thomas White: It is my understanding
that no change whatever has been made in the valuation for import upon which customs duties are levied. I believe the Minister of Customs stated the other day that no such change had been made.
I would like to read what Hon. Mr. Fielding said in 1907, because in my view it precisely represents the situation today so far as the International Harvester Company's business in Hamilton is concerned; and I think we all agree that an industry such as that, with $4,000,000 of plant and doing a business of $40,000,000 in Canada, should, if possible, be retained in the country. Mr. Fielding said:
My belief Is that If this motion were passed we would strike a severe blow at one of the great industries of the country. I believe the International Harvester Company would find it to its interest to close up its business in Hamilton, at least so much of it as is devoted to mowers and binders and have them made at the American branch and bring them from

the United ^States. The factory in Hamilton is an American concern. With a moderate duty we have induced American capital to come into Canada and to establish that great industry and after we have brought it in and established it in Canada I believe that if they were to pass this resolution the company operating that industry would And it profitable to close the Hamilton factory and bring in the goods which they make in the United States.
I am not passing any opinion upon the resolution in question, because I do not know how far it went, but I do say that if the duty on these particular agricultural implements manufactured by the International Harvester Company in Hamilton were reduced to a point at which it would be more profitable to the International Harvester Company to manufacture its binders, reapers and mowers in Chicago because of the less cost of construction, it would, of course, manufacture in Chicago for its Canadian trade.


George Perry Graham: There may be this difference, that the cost of production in Canada is not as great, comparatively, now as it was in 1907. In 1907 the Canadian manufacturer was handicapped by a duty on coal, but in 1914 he has his waterpower, very cheap power, cheaper than even the Chicago manufacturer has.


William Thomas White: That might be a factor,
though I do not think it would go to the length of destroying the argument of my predecessor.


William Foster Cockshutt: I think the hon.
member for North Oxford did not make quite as much difference between the American and Canadian freight as he should have done. I have here the actual rates. An eight furrow engine gang plough, f.o.b., Brantford, weighs 5,618 lb., on which the freight to Winnipeg is 64 cents per hundred lb., or $35.96. The plough centre in the United States, which is the main competitor and is more remote than Chicago, is Moline, 111. The freight rate from Moline to Winnipeg on 5,618 lb. is 53 cents a hundred, or in all $29.78, against $35.96, a difference of between $6 and $7 in freight alone between Brantford and Winnipeg and Moline and Winnipeg, the distributing centre of the West. I think the hon. member's figures are scarcely correct.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I got my figures from the Grand Trunk.


George Perry Graham: The carload rate from
Toronto to Winnipeg is sixty-four cents and
from Chicago to Minneapolis it is fifty-four cents.


William John Macdonald: Is the drawback to be continued to manufacturers of agricultural implements? There is some general misapprehension on the subject whether that drawback extends to material imported which enters into the manufacture of implements no matter whether they are for export or home consumption.


William Thomas White: T'hc drawback in respect of mowing machines, harvesters, binders and reapers .and complete parts thereof remains as .it was. There is a ninety-nine per cent drawback whether sold in Canada or sold abroad. My hon. friend knows, of course, that all manufacturers are entitled to a drawback upon the duty paid on imported raw materials entering into products that are exported; but in addition to that the manufacturers of mowing machines and harvesters and binders receive a drawback of ninety-nine per cent upon the iron and steel entering into the manufacture of saoh machines sold in Canada. We have not changed that drawback provision.


William John Macdonald: Would the minister
make a memorandum to obtain a statement of the amount of money that has been paid by way of drawback to manufacturers of implements in the past year?


William Thomas White: I am informed that that
has already been brought down this session but I shall endeavour to remember it.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Can the minister say
from memory that other implement makers, apart from the makers of binders and mower's and reapers, do not get a drawback except for export.


William Thomas White: Yes.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: Would the minister say whether the difference in freights is based on mileage or on the rate per hundred pounds?


William Thomas White: The mileage is greater by the Canadian route. It is a greater distance from Hamilton to Winnipeg than from Chicago to Winnipeg.


William Findlay Maclean: Not only is there a difference in distance but a difference in freight rate per hundred pounds. Which side has the lower rate?


William Thomas White: I am sorry not to be able to answer that. I looked into the matter and ascertained that the rates were in favour of the American manufacturer.


George Perry Graham: The freight rate per hundred, per carload, per mile, is dearer, I think, on the other side.


William Findlay Maclean: I do not think so.


George Perry Graham: The freight rate on agricultural implements per hundred in carload lots is 64 cents between Toronto and Winnipeg, and 54 cents between Chicago and Minneapolis.


Mr. HANNA:: The hon. gentleman is
wrong.


George Perry Graham: The Grand Trunk Railway Company gave me the figures.


Adelbert Edward Hanna: The price which was quoted me was 20 cents a hundred from Chicago to Minneapolis, and 64 cents from Hamilton or Toronto to Winnipeg.


George Perry Graham: The Grand Trunk railway quoted me the rate per carload, namely, 64 cents per hundred in carload lots from Toronto to Winnipeg, and 54 cents from Chicago to Minneapolis. That is as plain as they could make it.


William Findlay Maclean: In that case the American roads were quoting a competing rate with Canadian railways; in the other case they were not. My understanding is that freight rates are lower on the other side.


Adelbert Edward Hanna: The figures were given to
me by a manufacturer of harvesting implements in Smith's Falls, and I think they are absolutely correct. Some statements had been made heTe in regard to the difference in price of agricultural implements in Winnipeg and Minneapolis and this gentleman gave me the following figures: on binders from Chicago to Minneapolis the rate is 20 cents a hundred, and from Hamilton, or Toronto, to Winnipeg, 64 cents; a difference of 44 cents making a difference of $9 on the binder. The difference in price between an 8-foot binder in Winnipeg and Minneapolis is $10 actually, so it only leaves one dollar of difference in the price of a binder when you take into account the difference in freight rates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
453a. Electrical dental engines-British preferential, 15 per cent; intermediate, 27 J per cent; general, 27i per cent.
["The figures were given to\nme by a manufacturer of harvesting implements in Smith's Falls, and I think they are absolutely correct. Some statements had been made heTe in regard to the difference in price of agricultural implements in Winnipeg and Minneapolis and this gentleman gave me the following figures: on binders from Chicago to Minneapolis the rate is 20 cents a hundred, and from Hamilton, or Toronto, to Winnipeg, 64 cents; a difference of 44 cents making a difference of $9 on the binder. The difference in price between an 8-foot binder in Winnipeg and Minneapolis is $10 actually, so it only leaves one dollar of difference in the price of a binder when you take into account the difference in freight rates."]
William John Macdonald: What is the change in that?


William Thomas White: Electrical dental engines
were formerly on the free list. They are 
now manufactured in Canada and we have increased the rate.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Does the minister think that will raise the price of teeth fillings?


William Thomas White: I do not think so. Our dental friends made no objection; in fact, it will be a good thing for them, as they can get their material for repairs from Canadian manufacturers.


William John Macdonald: Going back to item 445a, was any change made in regard to malleable iron eastings?


William Thomas White: No change. I am glad my hon. friend has drawn attention to that. Item 445 under the present tariff includes
Mowing machines, harvesters, self-binding or without binders, binding attachments, reapers and complete parts thereof, hot including shafting, 17i per cent.
We have reduced that to 12J per cent. Malleable iron castings have not been included, as the manufacturers would not be able to stand the reduction from 17i per cent to 12i per cent. We have consequently allowed the rate on malleable iron castings to remain precisely as it was.


William John Macdonald: Where are those industries located?


William Thomas White: There is one at Oshawa, another at Hamilton, and others in Ontario.


William John Macdonald: Is the malleable iron casting company in Hamilton associated with the International Harvester Company?


William Thomas White: I was not aware, until some *gentleman told me, that there was a malleable castings factory in Hamilton, so I am unable to answer my hon. friend.
I know the one at Oshawa is not connected with the agricultural implement industry. There is another factory at Brantford, which is also an independent company.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Would, the minister point out the item in the tariff relating to iron tubes or iron pipes?
Mr. 'WHITE: We have passed that; it is item 398.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is there an increase in that?


William Thomas White: Yes. If my hon. friend will look at item 398 of the present tariff he will find the following:
Wrought or seamless iron or steel tubing, plain or galvanized, threaded and coupled or

not, over 4 inches in diameter, n.o.p., 15 per cent.
Item 399 reads:
Wrought or seamless iron or steel tubing, plain or galvanized, threaded and coupled or not, 4 inches or less in diameter, n.o.p., 35 per cent.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Do the manufacturers import this material and put it together in this country ?


William Thomas White: No, they manufacture it here from dutiable raw material. My hon. friend is probably aware that the reason for the difference between the 15 per cent and 35 per cent rate is because wrought or seamless iron or steel tubing over four inches in diameter was not manufactured in Canada. The Page Hersey Company, at Guelph, which has also an establishment at Welland, now manufactures this wrought or seamless iron or steel tubing up to 10 inches in diameter. We have therefore increased the duty on tubing between 4 and 10 inches in diameter. Item 398a in the new schedule covers tubing over 10 inches in diameter, which we have left at the rate of 15 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
471. Rolled round wire rods in the coil, of iron or steel not over three-eighths of an inch in diameter, when imported oy wire manufacturers for use in making wire in the coil in their own factories, per ton-British preferential, $2.25; intermediate, $3.50; general, $3.50.
471a. Rolled round rods in the coil, or iron or steel, whether annealed or cleaned, or not, when imported by manufacturers of chain for use only in their own factories in the manufacture of chain, per ton-British preferential, $2.25; intermediate, $3.50 ; general, $3.50.
['No, they manufacture it here from dutiable raw material. My hon. friend is probably aware that the reason for the difference between the 15 per cent and 35 per cent rate is because wrought or seamless iron or steel tubing over four inches in diameter was not manufactured in Canada. The Page Hersey Company, at Guelph, which has also an establishment at Welland, now manufactures this wrought or seamless iron or steel tubing up to 10 inches in diameter. We have therefore increased the duty on tubing between 4 and 10 inches in diameter. Item 398a in the new schedule covers tubing over 10 inches in diameter, which we have left at the rate of 15 per cent.']
William Stewart Loggie: Regarding items 471 and 471a, the minister said in his Budget speech:
We have reached the conclusion that the apprehension on the part of the nail-making firms who have opposed the granting of a duty is not well founded. We believe it is in the interest of the nail-making industry as well as the wire rod industry that a duty should be imposed.
The minister did not state why that apprehension was not well founded. He told us of the representations made by the small nail makers as to why the duty on wire rods should not be put on. Then he recited to us the reasons why the duty should be put on as asserted by the two large mills that make the greater proportion of the nails. If he had explained to us on what basis he comes to that conclusion we might the more intelligently conform to his suggestion that we place a duty upon wire
rods. After I have had his answer to that I will have something further to say as to what will be the result of this duty on wire rods with respect to nails.


William Thomas White: There can be no object on the part of the manufacturers of wire rods, who would desire to increase their product and find a market for it in Canada, attempting to destroy those industries engaged in the manufacture of nails. They have expressly repudiated any intention of doing so and it has been my own experience that these large concerns do not deliberately set about trying to injure smaller concerns. The object of the manufacturers of wire rods-the Dominion Iron and Steel Companies and Steel Company of Hamilton, who are engaged in the manufacture' of wire rods-is to sell their product to those engaged in the manufacture of nails and it is inconceivable that they should attempt to destroy them. My hon. friend will admit, I am sure, that those who have a protection at the present time of.60 cents per keg upon wire nails can hardly be heard to object to the imposition of a reasonable duty on wire rods. Wire rods, as my hon. friend knows, have been upon the free list. We have placed a duty of $3.50, general, upon wire rods when imported for us in making wire into coil in the importers' own factories. That is a duty under 15 per cent and it did not appear to me, after his having given the matter as careful and painstaking consideration as I have ever given any question in my life, that it would be just to deny to the manufacturers of wire rods a duty as reasonable as that by reason of the fact that the manufacturer of nails, having a duty of 60 cents a keg, wjiich would represent probably 30 per cent or more-


William Stewart Loggie: About 40 peer cent.


William Thomas White: -would be apprehensive that the manufacturer of wire rods would take advantage of the duty for the purpose, to put it in a commonplace way, of putting him out of business.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If they did that, how would you propose to punish them? I understood the minister, when delivering his Budget speech, to utter a word of warning to the manufacturers of steel wire who are also engaged in the manufacture of nails, and I have been wondering what was in the mind of the minister.


William Thomas White: When I used those words, I used them generally, not speaking of the manufacture of wire rods only; but I have held the view that the manufacturers in Canada of any commodity, enjoying the benefits of the protective system, should endeavour to take care of their market, and should not pursue any course having as its object the destruction of other enterprises. In other words, I believe that they should carry on their business in a fair way. What is a fair way will depend upon circumstances and upon the judgment that is brought to bear upon the matter. I realise the difficulties of the Government undertaking to pronounce upon what is fair and what is unfair, but I would not hesitate to say that if I came to the conclusion that a deliberate course was being pursued-and no such circumstances have been brought to my attention since I have been a minister-of attempting to destroy or injure others who were endeavouring to carry on their business in a proper way in Canada, I would not hesitate to pass an Order in Council reducing or even abolishing the duty. Take the case of the cement cut; I held, and I said, too, in this House, that it was the duty of the cement manufacturers to take care of their market and to provide that, when the West wanted cement as they knew they would want cement, that cement should be at the head of the lakes in time to meet the requirements of the West. Having failed to do that in that particular year, I had no hesitation in reaching the conclusion that I should cut the duty in half for a limited period. In this case I do not hold out any threat, because I do not think any threat is necessary. I believe that it is in the interest of the manufacturers of wire rods to carry on their business fairly with the manufacturers of wire nails. I have no reason to believe that they will take any undue or improper advantage of this tariff imposition, which I believe is clearly necessary if we are to have a wire rod industry in Canada. Personally, I do not like to look forward to the possibility of this country having to depend absolutely upon a supply of wire rods from external sources.


William Stewart Loggie: The large companies have assured the minister
That they will, by no means, injure those engaged in the nail business.
I did not know but that the minister might be able to give us some idea as to how they will be able to operate this busi-
ness without injuring small nail-makers. In my judgment, the minister is creating a monopoly in the hands of two great companies that may jump the price of Wire rods to the small nail men and then jump the price of nails to the people of Canada.


William Thomas White: Is my hon. friend aware that I have not raised the duty on nails?


William Stewart Loggie: Yes, I am aware that the minister has not raised the duty on nails. If he had lowered the duty on nails he might have been able to protect the consumer, but instead of that he leaves the duty where it is, equal to about 40 per cent of the present value f.o.b. Pittsburg. The rate is 60 cents per keg, and the effect will be that by this duty of 174 cents upon wire rods, the minister will take three-quarters of a million dollars out of the pockets of the people on the one item of nails, which are the product of wire rods. These two companies will not injure the small nail makers, tout they will charge the small nail-makers 17J cents more for their rods and then they will make the price that they will charge the wholesale trade, and I venture to say that you will find that nails when sold to the consumer will be at least fifty cents a keg higher than they were last year.


William Thomas White: May I ask the hon. gentleman if the price of nails has fallen in the last two years, and if so, how much?


William Stewart Loggie: Yes.


William Thomas White: How much?


William Stewart Loggie: I think about 20 cents
per keg.


William Thomas White: Would the building trade resume its activity if they went up 20 cents a keg?


William Stewart Loggie: I do not know that I
would be very much surprised if they went up 50 cents a keg; that is what I expect to see.
Mr. "WHITE: How much of the duty of 60 cents a keg is now taken by the manufacturer of nails in Canada?


William Stewart Loggie: Nearly the whole of it
is taken. The base price of nails in Canada is about $1.90 and the base price in Pittsburg is about $1.40, so that a large proportion of the duty of 60 cents per keg on nails is now added to the price by the Canadian manufacturers.


William Thomas White: I would like to ask my
hon. friend how the price by any chance could go up 50 cents a keg if there is only 20 cents of a leeway under the tariff?


William Stewart Loggie: There will (be a perfect
monopoly.


William Thomas White: I am not raising the duty on nails.


William Stewart Loggie: I admit you are not raising the duty on nails; but the effect will be that, when the 171 cents aTe added to the price of the raw material, notwithstanding the promise that the small nail manufacturers are not to be hurt, the two large mills that supply the wire rods to the small mills will be able to dictate prices. The small mills will make as much money as they make now and perhaps more. Possibly they are unduly competing one with another at the present time, and that is perhaps one reason why nails are being sold now at a reasonable price. The wholesale price at present, I think, is $2.10 to $2.15; but the Pender people in St. John and the Maritime people were selling them as low or a little lower than $2 base, but at present the-price in Montreal is $2.15 in a small way. I may be wrong, but my judgment is that the minister is placing this industry of manufacturing nails in the hands of two great steel companies, the Dominion Iron and Steel Company and the Steel Company of Hamilton, who together manufacture 70 per cent of the 1,500,000 kegs used in Canada which amounts to 1,050,000 kegs, so that they can very well afford to accept 171 cents per 100 lb. extra from the small companies when they have the power to dictate to the small companies what shall be the price of nails to the wholesale trade. As the hon. minister goes around the country in his automobile-


William Thomas White: I have not got one.


William Stewart Loggie: and when he sees the farmers using four or five kegs of nails in the construction of a barn, he will see that he is taking out of the consumers an extra tax of $2.50 for the construction of each barn, because of this duty. It would not be so bad if he could limit it to 171 cents per 100 lb., the amount of the duty on the rods. There is no difficulty for a number of nail manufacturers to form a combine; but they *sometimes (become dissatisfied one with another, and the combine is not maintained. That has occurred recently. But owing to the control by the two large companies, I suggest that the small companies will be
subject to their dictation as to the price at which the nails are to be sold to the trade.


John Hampden Burnham: Is the price necessarily raised to the consumer? [DOT]


William Stewart Loggie: That has been our experience. You cannot have a monopoly where there is not a large investment; but whenever you have a large investment in say two companies, there can easily be arranged a monopoly as to selling price.


John Hampden Burnham: Has the minister not
provided against that?


William Stewart Loggie: No, he has not provided. He has put into the hands of the Dominiou Iron and Steel Company and the Steel Company of Hamilton the power to chaTge what prices they can.


William Thomas White: Apart from the tariff of sixty cents per one hundred pounds on nails, which I have not changed, what was to prevent the Dominion Iron and Steel Company and the Steel Company of Hamilton and the small nail manufacturers from getting together, because that is what my hon. friend suggested last summer? What change is there in that regard? My hon. friend says that will create a monopoly in the manufacture of nails. What was to hinder them from doing that last year? My hon. friend knows that I have not changed the duty on nails.	.


William Stewart Loggie: That is exactly what was done. The prices went up but the monopoly did not stand. The agreement was not adhered to by each of them.


William Thomas White: That was under the present tariff?


William Stewart Loggie: Yes.


William Thomas White: I was not responsible for
that.


William Stewart Loggie: But you are now confining the monopoly to two companies.


William Thomas White: The others are still in
business.


William Stewart Loggie: The others cannot move
because they are dictated to by the wire companies that supply the wire rods. They will dictate to the people of Canada and take out of their pockets $750,000 because fifty cents a keg on 1,500,000 kegs is equal to $750,000.


William Thomas White: My hon friend comes from the Maritime provinces; and apart from the particular intelligence that characterizes all who come from there, they are all interest-

ed in the steel industry. The steel industry is one of the great basic industries of Canada, and I think it is a mistake to look upon these two companies simply as two companies, for we must remember that they represent a great deal of capital, including English and foreign capital. Does my hon. friend think it fair that under our system those two great industries should not have a reasonable measure of protection on their wire rod production, which is,one of the most important branches of their production? Under present conditions, and especially under the conditions which prevail in the United States to-day, that powerful corporation, the United States Steel Company, highly specialized, developed over very many years under a protective system, is able to hold its own market and to sell its wire rods in Canada at two or three dollars a ton below the cost of production, let us say, at Hamilton. I have had the matter looked into, and I know the cost in the city of Hamilton to the Steel Company of Hamilton. My hon. friend, as I understand him. is opposed to the imposition of a duty upon wire rods.


William Stewart Loggie: I have not so much objection to the duty on wire rods as I have to your allowing to remain a duty of 60 cents per keg on nails. If you would reduce the duty on nails, you would prevent and avoid the difficulty of a combine and an undue advance in the price of the manufactured article.	[DOT]


William Thomas White: My hon. friend is usually a very fair minded man. Does he not think he would get the manufacture of nails coming and going? Under the Fielding tariff, under which my hon. friend sat for many years, and to which, I believe, he gave very generous and loyal support, for which I do not blame him, the duty on nails was 60 cents per keg, and the wire rods from which those nails were made were on the free list. I have raised the duty on wire rods to $3.50 per ton, and my hon. friend does not dissent from my action. What about the manufacture of wire nails? Under the Fielding tariff he had 60 cents per keg protection, equal to from 30 per cent to 40 per cent, and he had his wire rods free. I raised his wire rods to $3.50; and my hon. friend, who never protested before, so far as I can learn, against the duty of '60 cents per keg imposed by the late Government, says now that it is an injustice ttf' tv* consuming

public because we do not reduce the duty . upon wire nails. If we did that, as I said, we would get the manufacturer coming and going. We would increase the cost of his raw material, and we would decrease the protection, which presumably has been reasonable, because it was supported by my reasonable friend (Mr. Loggie), I think my hon. friend's apprehensions are not well founded, and I will tell him why. There is a competition in the country in respect of nails, and I do not believe a combine will be formed because it is too big a country. At the present time the nail manufacturers of Canada are not taking advantage of the full amount of the tariff rates. It is often stated in this House that the price of an article in Canada is determined by the cost of production plus the freight and the duty. That is not correct. It may be correct in some cases; but it is by no means correct in all cases, and it certainly is not correct in the case of nails.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: How much of that tariff do the nail manufacturers pay?


William Thomas White: At the present time I am not in agreement with my hon. friend, although he may be correct. I will make this statement, that they are not taking anything like the whole of the tariff protection.


Mr. CURRIE:: They are not taking any of it.


William Thomas White: I am glad to have my hon. friend, who is engaged in the business, make that statement. I understood they were either taking none or very little of the protection. In Canada we have an over-production of nails, which one would expect in a period like this; when there has been somewhat of a stagnation in building activities one would expect that the price of nails would fall. I have been advised, as my hon. friend (Mr. Currie) states, that the nail manufacturers are not taking any of the duty. Assuming that what my hon. friend (Mr. Loggie) states is correct, that is that they are taking a little more than half of the duty, the balance is leeway for them to go upon if they desire to take advantage of the protection afforded by the tariff rates. I do not suggest for a moment that should be done, because I think the price should be determined by competition in Canada within the tariff wall. And the safeguard against monopoly is the power of the Government to reduce the rates upon wire nails or other commodities in the

event of a combine being formed, and there is the necessary legislation on the statute book already to enable the Government to take that action.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I quite appreciate the
fear expressed by my hon. friends on this side. There is no monopoly at present; I understand some of the manufacturers are selling wire nails at less than cost. But when the Dominion Steel Company and the Canada Steel Company have the benefit of these duties on rods, as they manufacture nails also, it is possible that they will say to the other manufacturers of nails: We will sell your rods at a certain price, but if we catch you cutting the price of nails we will sell you no more rods. I am not a prophet, nor am I a prophet's son, so I am not going to say that that is what they will do. But they cannot do it now, because the rods come in free, and the smaller manufacturers can laugh at the big concerns and even compete with them. As to the help that this duty will give, I hope it will be as useful as my hon. friends thinks it will. My own notion is that both these concerns should be reorganized from the inside. I have said that before.


John Allister Currie: I desire to correct a wrong impression of my hon. friend when he spoke of the prices of nails in the United States and Canada. At present in the United States there are three large concerns that in the past twenty months have gone into the manufacture of nails-the Jones and Loughlon Company, of Pittsburg; the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, of Youngstown, Ohio; and the Cambria Company, of Johnstown, Pa. Prices are unduly depressed in the United States. I have here the Iron Age, which gives the price of nails in Chicago as $1.78. Nails are selling to-day in Toronto and Hamilton at $1.85. During my connection with the business, which extends over eight or nine years, 1 have never seen nails selling in Canada at higher prices than they were selling for in Chicago. Now, as a matter of fact, no person can buy wire rods in the United States cheaper than $24.50 per ton. If you take the cost of conversion, which is $15 per ton, from the cost per ton of the wire nails as sold at $1.78, you will find that wire rods for conversion purposes are estimated by these concerns at $20 per ton.
Now, as to the matter of wire nails, there is no possibility of combination.
10	p.m. The American market for the finished product is so low as 199
compared with the raw material, and the rate at which they can send them in here is so low that nails must always be sold at a very narrow margin in Canada. I do not think there is a possibility of anybody suffering through the imposition of this duty. Tremendous competition is an economic waste. Some makers may be better situated than others for getting raw material, and when there is a free market, they compete unduly, lake, for instance, the makers in New Brunswick. The man who manufactures wire in New Brunswick can bring in his raw material into St. John cheaper than can any manufacturer in the West, and at the same time, he can land his product in Winnipeg and the West, for virtually the same amount as can any manufacturer in Ontario.
So far as the manufacture of nails is concerned, I am sure that any change will be a change for the better. The companies are all confronted with the fact that the United States Steel Corporation is coming over shortly and will manufacture all lines of wire products and steel. They will supply themselves with semi-raw material on which they will take all the profit on the other side and will sell here in competition on that basis. Just as the American manufacturers of reapers do. They have branches here and they send in material from the United States semi-finished, they assemble it here and sell. There is no method of getting at such concerns for dumping, and there will be ample and free competition in Canada.
Now, as to whether anybody is going to suffer, whether anybody is going to be placed in the hands of the large corporations, I would remind the committee that the minister in his speech stated that if there was any attempt to squeeze the small manufacturer, the Government would take prompt action and put a stop to it. I do not think any Minister of the Crown has ever made that statement before in the case of an industry of this kind. In view of that statement, I think it would be well for us to accept the situation. For we must all recognize that if we are going to get the wider markets which my hon. friends from the West talk about, we must increase the number of workingmen in this country. The United States, in 1872, discovered that the state of Illinois was producing such large quantities of wheat that their surplus was more than ample to supply all the requirements of the British market. And a great panic ensued, the people fearing that they could not find a

market. The Americans took that into consideration and increased their duty on everything, adopting a higher protective
policy. They went on this basis:	If a man
in England -is producing goods for the United States, only about ten per cent ot the flour he consumes would be produced in the United States, And in our case today, if a man in the United States produces an article to be sent to Canada, on y about one-tenth of one per cent of the food he consumes is produced in Canada. me remedy, of course, is to put up a tariff wall and have these men produce goods here. In that way the western farmer will get the benefit of the whole consumption of these people. And in the United States, by putting up that wall, they are enabled to consume virtually all the food they produce, except in some years when they have an exceptional margin of wheat, but are never in danger of suflering because of the need
of a wider market
The best place to get a wider market i? right here in this country; Canada is suffering at the present time from too much importation. Many of our friends in the West, if given the choice between an American! made and a Canadian made article, buy the American article. It does seem to me that the proper way to look at this matter is from the national standpoint; from the standpoint of what is going to benefit the country the most and of what is going to benefit the farmers in the West the most. How are they going to get their wider market? Every man who supplies goods to the people of this country should be compelled to live in Canada, so that he will help consume the grain of the West. Where are all these new cities going to get their woTkingmen? How are they going to exist unless the Government of this country wisely places a tariff upon certain articles and encourages their manufacture in this country? I heard a protest from hon. gentlemen. from the West this afternoon with regard to quarry stone. A quarry employing 200 men is in operation a few miles this side of Winnipeg. Why should not all this stone be manufactured in Canada? I had some work to do in my riding on a public building, and I insisted that a large quantity of Canadian marble should he used in its construction. The result was that there was opened at Maddock a fine quarry that will supply millions of dollars worth of fine marble stone which might otherwise be brought all the way from Ttaly. Is it not 
better to have the workingmen of this country, who consume the beef and grain of the West, polish and manufacture this marble than to have it done by foreign workmen who consume only a very small proportion of the products of our farms? It is just as essential for us to have a large number of factories in this country and to have workingmen consuming our products as it is for the United States-and the example of the United States is a very good example to follow. I do not think anybody will suffer from this duty on wire rods; I do not think that the smaller people will be put out of business. I have an interest in a mill and if it were not beneficial I would be the first man to denounce it.


William Stewart Loggie: I quite agree with my
hon. friend that the duty will not hurt the small mill, but I fear the dictation of prices all over Canada. Why can we not in Canada manufacture rods into nails as cheaply as they can in the United States?


John Allister Currie: Does my hon. friend not think that the Canadian manufacturer is entitled to a fair and reasonable profit, or must he do business for nothing?


William Stewart Loggie: Is it not a fair assumption that the United States manufacturer of nails makes a profit? Assuming that the rods cost the American manufacturer $24.50 a ton and the Canadian manufacturer $28 a ton, why should there be any greater difference between the prices of the manufactured article than the difference between the respective costs of the raw material? I have handled thousands of kegs of nails, and I have never in my life handled any other than Canadian nails for consumption in Canada.


William Cameron Edwards: Have yon ever made
any money on them?


William Stewart Loggie: I certainly have. I have bought United States nails in the United States for consumption in that country, and I have often wondered why there should be so much difference between the price in Canada and the price in the United States.


John Allister Currie: I told the hon. gentleman a moment ago that if the American manufacturers had to pay for their rods the price at which they are willing to sell them, $24.50, it would be impossible for them to sell nails at $1.75 a keg. But the American	concerns have a

great many improved processes of manufacture. The larger concerns across the line own their own ore and their own coal and manufacture their own pig iron and steel, and they are willing to forego the profits on ten operations perhaps in order to make a profit upon one. I have never known the manufacturers of this country to sell nails at a price one cent higher than they were selling in Chicago, and I think that if the Canadians can get their nails as cheaply in Canada as they are selling in Chicago, nobody need worry.


William Stewart Loggie: If the Canadian can get his nails at the same price as the American, plus the amount of the duty we are placing upon the rods, I shall make no complaint whatever.


John Allister Currie: The Canadian manufacturer cannot get his labour nearly as cheaply as it is obtained in the big iron centres of the United States. The labour employed in this business is largely col oured and foreign labour, Poles and Bulgarians. They are paid $1.25 a day, whereas we pay labourers $2 a day.


Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: I understand
that there is a provision in the resolution whereby the new tariff applicable to wire rods shall not become operative until July next. If that is the case, will the minister explain why that provision has been made?


William Thomas White: Resolution 6 is as follows:
6. Resolved, that the foregoing provisions shall he held to have come into force on the seventh day of April, 1914, and to have applied to all goods imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on and after that day, and to have also applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that day, except as otherwise provided in the foregoing resolutions:
Provided, notwithstanding any increase in Customs under the said resolutions, that all goods actually purchased on or before the sixth day of April, 1914, for importation into Canada, on evidence satisfactory to the Minister of Customs of the purchase having been so made, and all goods in warehouse in Canada on such day, if entered for duty after importation prior to the first day of July, 1914, may be entered at the rate of duty in force on the said sixth day of April, 1914.
The hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll), referring to that proviso said it was unprecedented. That is not the fact and I privately drew his attention to it after his speech. In 1904, upon what was regarded, as I regard this, as a partial revision of the tariff, a similar provision 1991
was attached to the tariff resolutions. I shall read the resolution of that day:
6. Resolved, that the foregoing provision shall be held to have come into force on the eighth day of June, 1904, and to have applied to all goods imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on and after that day, and to have also applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that day, except as otherwise provided in the foregoing resolutions: Provided, that all goods actually purchased on or before the seventh day of June, 1904, at any place out of Canada, for importation into Canada, on evidence to the satisfaction of the Minister of Customs of the purchase having been so made, and all goods in warehouse in Canada on such day, may be entered for duty at the rate of duty in force immediately before the said day (without special duty) ; notwithstanding any increase in Customs duties under the said resolutions, but this proviso shall cease to have force and effect after the thirty-first day of August in the present year.
That was the resolution in 1904 applying to the tariff changes made at that time. I made inquiry about this matter and I think this was the reason that the proviso of 1904 was introduced just as is the reason for the proviso to-day: When a general revision of the tariff is being effected the people are aware that such revision is to be made and in consequence it is not usual to allow a time within which goods in respect of which contracts have been entered into for purchase shall be admitted; but in the ease of such an extensive revision as, while not a general revision, is regarded as a partial revision of the tariff it is only fair that parties who have engaged to purchase goods, having had no notice that the partial revision was in contemplation, should be given a reasonable time within which to import at the existing rates goods which they had previously contracted to purchase. That is the reason why this proviso has been attached to the tariff resolution. It would seem to me manifestly unjust that in the case of a revision so extensive as this is men should be penalized by having to pay increased rates of duty in respect of goods they had ordered with delivery extending over a considerable period in the future, without having any notice that the revision was in contemplation.


John Howard Sinclair: There has been a long
discussion of wire nails. I understand that there are a number of factories apart from nail manufactories using wire rods. Would the minister give a statement of the industries of which wire rods are the raw material?


William Thomas White: Wire rods are the basis of wire products of all kinds including wire

nails. The manufacturers of wire draw their wire from the wire rods and would be affected in this that their raw material is now dutiable to the extent of $3.50 per ton. Of course, my hon. friend knows that they have the benefit of a protective tariff so far as their industry is concerned and tny hon. friend also knows that I have given a drawback in respect of the duty on wire rods entering into the production of wire used for wire fencing. I did that because I thought that the agriculturist of Canada was interested in the price of wire fencing and I therefore, gave the drawback of 99 per cent in respect of wire rod entering into the production of wire of 9, 12 and 13 gauge which is used in the manufacture of fencing. I have dealt with wire and with wire rods. My hon. friend was not in the House when I dealt with the other tariff item, with chains.


Mr. CUKEIE:: 
[Stage Direction]
Items agreed to.
478a. Iron or steel bands, strips or sheets, number fourteen gauge or thinner, coated, polished, or not, and rolled iron or steel sections, not being ordinary square, flat or round bars, when imported by manufacturers of saddlery, hardware and hames for use exclusively in the manufacture of such articles in their own factories-British preferential, free; intermediate, free; general, free.
Mr. BOIVIN:: I see that iron and steel bands, etc., when imported by manufacturers of saddlery, for use exclusively in the manufacture of such articles in their own factories, are to be .admitted free. I suppose that is to encourage the manufacturers?


William Thomas White: To assist the industry.


Georges Henri Boivin: In the old tariff from No. 470 to 483, there are a large number of similar items. I think an application was made some time ago to the minister by a company in my county manufacturing steel planes and carpenters' tools that steel blanks for plane cutters and plane cutter caps should either be put on the free list or be given a drawback. These dies do not exist in Canada, and the blanks cannot be manufactured Imre. I see nothing in the tariff to that effect. This industry did not exist when the Fielding tariff was drawn up, and I would ask the minister if he has any intention of giving the same protection to these plane manufacturers as to the . manufacturer of saddlery, hardware and hames?


William Thomas White: I do not recall the application to which my hon. friend refers, although no doubt it was made. As my hon. friend knows, it is unusual except on the occasion of the Budget to make any announcement as to proposed tariff changes, but I shall be very glad to look into the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
486. Iron tubing, brass covered, not over three inches in diameter, and brass trimmings, not polished, lacquered or otherwise manufactured, when imported by manufacturers of iron or brass bedsteads for use exclusively in the manufacture of such articles in their own factories-British preferential, free; intermediate, free; general, free.
Mr. A. K. MiACLEAN: Is that the item which the minister referred to in his Budget speech?
William Thomas White: No. The size of the tubing has been increased from 2 to 3 inches in diameter.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I had in mind some item in connection with brass, bnt I cannot find it.


William Thomas White: I will explain that to my hon. friend. As the item does not appear, some explanation is necessary before my hon. friend or any one else can understand it. Under the tariff of 1907, brass in bars and rods, in coil or otherwise, not less than 6 feet in length, and brass in strips, sheets or plates, not polished, planished or coated, was dutiable at 10 per cent general. An Order in Council was passed on the 11th August, 1908, placing brass upon the free list, as brass was not then manufactured in Canada. I believe that a firm which had been manufacturing brass, discontinued business owing to a fire. No other changes were made by that Order in Council, the tariff upon brass products remaining the same. There has been established in Toronto within the last year or so a copper and brass rolling mill, in which $250,000 capital has been invested. The plant is ready to produce brass in bars, rods and other forms.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Can they meet the demands of the country F


William Thomas White: I am informed that they can. After making very careful inquiries we are convinced that no objection will be put forward by those who use brass as their raw material, to this restoration of brass to the old 10 per cent item in the tariff. My hon. friend will understand that at the time the tariff was fixed upon brass products, the minister would have in mind that there was this 10 per cent duty upon brass in bars or rods, which is the raw material for brass products of a more finished character. The Order in Council merely removed the duty upon brass,-the raw material,- but did not reduce the duty upon brass products. The mill in North Toronto being now in a position to manufacture brass in bars and rods, we are repealing item 717, which is the Order in Council of 11th August, 1908, and brass in bars and rods comes under the 1907 tariff. That is why it does not appear in these resolutions.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is the minister sure it can be done in that way ? Is he sure that when once an article has been placed on the free list by Order in Council, it can be restored to the dutiable list by repealing the Order in Council ?


William Thomas White: We repeal the Order in Council, but we do not repeal the item in the tariff under which this article will come.
M. MACLEAN: I quite understand that, but I was wondering whether the minister had power to put back to the dutiable list anything from the free list, simply by repealing the Order in Council. Perhaps he would have to amend the Customs Act.


William Thomas White: The item is standing in the tariff.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am talking about the raw material.


William Thomas White: The item is 349:
Brass in bars and rods, in coil or otherwise, not less than 6 feet in length, and brass in strips, sheets or plates, not polished, planished or coated-British preferential, 5 per cent; intermediate, H per cent, general, 10 per cent.
That stands in the tariff to-day, and would be in force were it not for the Order in Council of 1908 which removed those duties. We are repealing the Order in Council so that brass will come under this item in the tariff.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I was just wondering whether you could do that.


William Thomas White: There may be something in my hon. friend's view. The tariff and customs officers seem to have no doubt about it, but my hon. friend's opinion is worthy of consideration, and I will be glad to consider it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
542. Jute or hemp yarn, plain, dyed or coloured, when imported by manufacturers for use exolusjvely in their own factories for weaving purposes, or for insulating wire, or for the manufacture of hammocks and twines-British preferential, free; intermediate, free; general, free.
John Howard Sinclair: In connection with these items, 542, 543 and 545, dealing with jute, linen yarn, etc., it might be a suitable time for me to draw the attention of the minister to the question of fishing twine, to which I have already referred on several occasions. I have already drawn the attention of the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Finance to a request of the fishermen on the Atlantic seaboard for free fishing twine used in lobster fishing. The particular kind of twine used in that industry is called unbarked marlin. At present, the twine known as barked marlin is free. The history of it is that in the tariff revision of 1907 it was in-

tended that all fishing twine should be placed on the free list, but by some mistake unbarked marlin was not referred to in item 682 of the tariff which deals with the matter. It was announced toy the Minister of Finance on that occasion that fishing twine was to be free. It was discovered later on that unbarked marlin was omitted. This discovery was not really made until two or three years ago and for a number of years after the last revision of the tariff this particular kind of twine was admitted free in the customs houses of Nova Scotia. When the present Government came into power a circular was sent out by the Minister of Customs warning the customs officers against admitting this twine free any longer. The consequence was that a duty of 25 per cent was levied upon this twine.


William Thomas White: Does my hon. friend suggest that the present Government rendered a decision in this matter that was not in force before?


John Howard Sinclair: Yes, practically that.
I drew the matter to the attention of the Government in the session of 1912, and the minister will find in the discussion a copy of the notice that was sent out by the Commissioner of Customs notifying the customs houses to levy this 25 per cent duty upon this particular kind of twine. As a matter of fact, the first notice that was sent out was an instruction to levy on both kinds of twine used in the lobster fishery, but that was afterwards corrected and it was then confined to what is known as unbarked marlin. Right or wrong, this twine had been admitted free until these instructions went out subsequent to the advent of the present Government to power.
I thought I would only have to draw the matter to the attention of the Government to have it adjusted, and I have done so on several occasions. The last time, in February of this year, I had the assurance of the Minister of Customs that when the tariff was dealt with this matter would be attended to. It was not attended to, and when the Budget came down I made an inquiry and the minister on that occasion stated that there was some difficulty about it, but he did not explain very fully what the difficulty was.
I note that in these items that we are dealing with at the present time the minister is generous to the manufacturers, but (Mr. Sinclair.]
he does not seem to have the same interest in the fishermen. For example, 533a:
Garnetted wool waste in the white when imported by manufacturers of woollen goods for use exclusively in their own factories
is free. The next item:
Jute or hemp yarn, plain, dyed or coloured, when imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in their own factories for weaving purposes, or for insulating wire, or for the manufacture of hammocks and twines
is free. The next item, 543
Linen yarn when imported by manufacturers of towels, damask, or seamless linen fire hose duck, for use exclusively in the manufacture of such articles in their own factories
is free. If there is a reason for refusing the request of 65,000 fishermen on the coast of the Maritime provinces I would like to know what it is. In this discussion it has come out on more than one occasion that changes have been made and duties imposed at the instance of one small factory. Last night it was disclosed that a small firm of Yankees at Port Hope had influence enough with this Government to get their raw material placed on the free list. Another small firm at Windsor had influence enough to impose a tax on caustic soda which is used by the soap manufacturers of this country and which will affect every man who uses soap and we all do on this side of the House. How does it come that the fishermen have not any influence with this Government?


George Perry Graham: They do not use the right kind of bait.


John Howard Sinclair: I think that some little concession is due to the fishermen of this country. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) promised them free medicine although he seems to have forgotten all about it. The free twine I am asking for now is only a bagatelle compared with the expense of providing free medicine and free medical attendance for the 65,000 fishermen on the coast of eastern Canada. In my own constituency the fishermen and farmers have been turned down in every request they have made to the present Government. The hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) cancelled all the appropriations by the late Government for the building of breakwaters and improvements along the coast of the county I represent. He cancelled them after they had been voted and after tenders had been asked and contracts made in some cases. When I asked him why he did it he

said that he had other more important places to attend to. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) cancelled a contract to build a branch line in my constituency and he did not stop there. He imposed a higher rate of freight on fresh fish and now the men who are engaged in the fishing industry have to struggle against that difficulty. If they want to send a carload of fish to the market they have to pay $10 or $12 more than they had to pay in 1911. The hon. Minister of Tirade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) when we asked him if he would consider an application from the fishermen along the coast for better communication with the Boston market so that they could get the advantage of the big prices that are going there for their fresh fish hardened his heart too and would not listen to our request. I thought I would have better luck with the Minister of Finance. I thought I was approaching a man who take3 a broader view and does not allow questions of. petty politics to enter into the consideration at all. I was depending upon him to do something and I must say that if he does not do something in this matter I will be very much disappointed. I am playing my last card now and if I lose the game it will be too bad. I will have to go home and tell the fishermen in my constituency that I have asked the Minister of Finance to put this right and that he has refused to do so. I trust that I will not have to do that.


William Stewart Loggie: I would suggest to the
minister that he might arrange the difficulty that my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) has spoken of. Cordage and rope less than 1$ inches in diameter is now on the free list for use in the lobster fishery and if he will put manilla marlin for use in the lobstery fishery on the free list it will meet the case.


William Thomas White: With regard to the recital of his troubles by the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. 'Sinclair) it puts me very much in mind of a line from Hamlet that I heard the other night:
One woe doth tread upon another's heels.
I have had due regard to what the hon. member for Guysborough draws to my attention and I have taken occasion to look into this matter of lobster twine recently. There is a statement which my hon. friend ha3 made which I think he will withdraw
when the facts which I have before me are brought to his attention. I have understood him to say that the present Government made a ruling which had not been adopted during the late Government's period of office in respect to the matter of this duty upon twine.
These are the facts. On the 18th of March, 1909, the collector of customs at Yarmouth advised the department that this twine was also used by furniture manufacturers and iron foundries in tying packages for shipments i and on the 26th of March, 1909, the collector was advised that such twine, although used for lobster traps, was not entitled to free entry. On the 14th of March, 1911, the collector of customs at Chatham forwarded a letter to the Department of Customs, inquiring as to the tariff classification of this twine when used for lobster traps. He was advised on the 18th of March, 1911, that it was dutiable. The ruling made in December, 1911, was in accordance with decisions previously given. I have made some inquiries and have been informed, although I do not pretend to have exhausted my inquiries in the matter, that it is almost impossible to place this twine upon the free list with the limitation that it is to be free when used for the fishing business, because once it has found its way into the hands of the retail dealers, it is quite impossible to follow it, so that it would really be making it free for all purposes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We have the same provision in connection with ropes for lobster fishing.


William Thomas White: I am advised by the customs officers that, in their opinion, it would be impossible to follow the twine in question. The effect of placing it upon the free list for the purpose that my hon. friend has in mind would be that it would be practically free for all purposes. I intend to pursue my inquiries further, and I will give the matter careful consideration before the final revision of the tariff takes place. At the present time I am unable to accede to the request of my hon. friend and place this twine on the free list for the reasons that I have given.


John Howard Sinclair: I am obliged to the minister for his explanation. I did not intend to mislead the committee about the facts. I did not have the information that prior to 1911 any inquiry had been made about the matter; but I was aware that a circular, which got into the press and was sent to all


William Stewart Loggie: I suppose the greatest difficulty will be that the country merchants who put the price down on the basis of its being imported and the buyer, as a rule, are under no special obligation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
546. Jute cloth or jute canvas, uncoloured, not further finished than cropped, bleached, mangled, or calendered-British preferential, 7J per cent; intermediate, 10 per cent; general, 10 per cent.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will the minister please explain whether there is an increase in the duty upon these articles; and if so, the reason offered for the increase?


William Thomas White: This matter is a little difficult to explain. Will my hon. friend look at tariff item 545, which reads:
Jute and jute butts, jute cloth as taken from the loom, not coloured, cropped, mangled, pressed, calendered, not finished in any way; and jute canvas, free.
The change made is due partly to the fact that it is required for administrative purposes, because it is difficult to distinguish jute canvas from jute cloth. This item 545 formerly included jute canvas, uncoloured, without any limitation. As jute canvas is jute cloth, the Department of Customs in January, 1912, ruled that jute canvas, uncoloured, not further finished than cropped, bleached, mangled or calendered, was free. The ruling practically cancelled item 546. The change now made removes any doubt as to the intention of Parliament. In item 546 of the tariff resolutions, the words ' on jute canvas ' have been added after the words ' jute cloth1 and jute canvas uncoloured, not

further finished than cropped, bleached, mangled or calendered, become subject to a general tariff of ten per cent.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: And for the last year you have not been collecting that duty?


William Thomas White: No, and jute canvas is
now dutiable whereas before it was not.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is there any reason for that?
Mr.WHITE: No, except that it cannot he distinguished from jute cloth and there is the same reason for a duty on jute canvas as there is for a duty on jute cloth. I suppose the ordinary principle of reasonable protection would apply.


George Perry Graham: Has this anything to do with the manufacture of bags?


William Thomas White: I think so, but, frankly, I do not know a great deal about jute canvas and jute cloth. The change is made as much for administrative purposes as any other.


George Perry Graham: This matter was drawn to my attention through a gentleman, who said that he rather expected it would be dealt with in committee by the minister himself. He informs me that it will affect bag manfacturing, and so will affect the users of bags. The principal point to which he drew attention was in connection with the shipment of grain from the West. If grain is shipped westward for transit by the Panama canal, I think it is admitted that it will have to be bagged. Therefore a duty on this raw material for bags may form quite an item as against not only the bag manufacturers but the grain producers as well. As a matter of fact, it was the hon. member for Huntington (Mr. Robb) who brought me the information, and he being a leading miller is quite an authority. The party who brought it to his attention said he had made representations to the minister, who, he expected, would deal with it in committee.


William Thomas White: No objection has been raised to this change on behalf of any hag manufacturer. Under item 252 of the tariff bags or sacks of hemp, linen or jute are dutiable at 20 per cent. I am not increasing that duty. I imagine there is no danger of an increase in the price of bags, because those manufacturers like others will be charging such prices as they are able to obtain for their product. I can-

not conceive that the imposition of a small duty on jute or canvas will have an appreciable effect upon the price of bags.


William Stewart Loggie: Do not the bagmakers
use jute imported free under item 545?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is the intention. I brought this matter up the other night, and it was explained that the reason why there were these two items instead of the one item in the existing tariff, was that some manufacturers were bringing in jute canvas further manufactured than is allowed under section 545 because the custom houses were construing the clause improperly in some places.


John Dowsley Reid: This is to make it plain.


William Thomas White: And I will draw attention to the fact-I believe it to be 11 p.m. a fact, though I am not positive-that in the case of such exports of grain as the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) speaks of, a drawback is granted.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
548. Twine or yarn of paper when imported by manufacturers of furniture for use only in their own factories in the manufacture of furniture-British preferential, free; intermediate, free; general, free.
William Thomas White: The purpose of this change is to bring about uniformity with item 724 of the present tariff which provides that this article is to be admitted free when imported to be ' woven into fabrics' in Canadian factories. I am advised that it was intended that this should cover the case of manufacturers of furniture, but the words ' woven into fabrics ' are not applicable to the processes in which the furniture manufacturer uses this twine. The change is designed to include manufacturers of furniture, widening the item to that extent.	.


John Howard Sinclair: It would be on all fours with the case I was putting to the minister in regard to fishing twine.


William Thomas White: But this could be much more readily checked up, the hon. gentleman will admit.


John Howard Sinclair: Perhaps so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
575. Embroideries, n.o.p., lace, n.o.p., braids, n.o.p., tapes of cotton or linen not over one and one-quarter inches in width, not including measuring tape lines, fringes, n.o.p., cords, elastic, round or flat, garter elastic, tassels, handkerchiefs of all kinds, lace collars and all manufactures of lace, nets and nettings of cotton, linen, silk or other material, n.o.p., shams and curtains, when made up, trimmed or untrimmed, corsets of all kinds, linen or cotton clothing, n.o.p.-British preferential, 25 per cent; intermediate, 32^ per cent; general, 35 per cent.
William Thomas White: We have included here
all braids, n. o. p., and tapes of cotton or linen. This change is made partially for administrative purposes; the increase in revenue will not be considerable. These tapes are made by the Belding Paul Corti-celli Company and other manufacturers in Canada, and it is almost impossible, I am told, to distinguish between the tapes and the braids. So we have placed tapes in the item.
Mr. .BOIVIN:	I see the word 'garter
elastic.' But I understand there is another item in the tariff which covers elastic over one inch width on which the duty is 20 per cent. Can the minister tell me the reason for this difference of duty between 35 per cent on narrow elastic and 20 per cent on elastic slightly wider?


William Thomas White: This is a matter my hon. friend drew to my attention in connection with webbing used for the manufacture of suspenders. Is that what he has in mind?


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes.


William Thomas White: Respecting the request for additional duty on webbing used in the manufacture of suspenders and other articles, the manufacturers of suspenders contend that, owing to the large variety of designs or patterns of webbings required in their industry, it would not warrant the establishment of a factory in Canada to manufacture said webbings. The webbings form the component material of chief value in the manufacture of suspenders. It was, therefore, considered advisable to leave this matter over for attention when general revision of the tariff takes place. There was another matter to which my hon. friend drew attention.


Georges Henri Boivin: The other matter was
giving relief to the manufacturer of this elastic either by giving him a drawback or allowing him a free entry for cotton yarns used in the manufacture of elastic. I see that under this tariff jute yarn, hemp yarn, linen yarn and woollen yarn are admitted free when used by Canadian manufacturers for the production of different articles.
Application has been made to the depart-

ment-it has undoubtedly been considered, although no change has been made in the tariS-for the placing of cotton, yam on the free list in order that it may be used in the manufacture of elastic fabric. It is admitted by the cotton manufacturers that what they call] combed yam and mercerized yarn is not manufactured in Canada and cannot be obtained in this country. Coarse cotton yarn, is produced in small quantities in only one factory in Canada, that of the Dominion Textile Company, I think. I understand that the minister hag in his department a letter from that firm saying that they have used their entire output and have none for sale1. There is in my constituency a factory engaged in the manufacture of elastic webbing. Four years ago elastic webbing was not manufactured in Canada; at the present time there i3 a factory at Granby-the Granby Elastic Webbing Company-and, I understand, one at Hamilton; these are the only two in Canada. The reason given by the hon. minister a moment ago for not increasing the duty on the wider fabric is a very good one, because that would increase the price to the suspender manufacturer and he in turn would be obliged to increase the price to the public. Of course, as the minister has said, it is only when the Budget is brought down that we are supposed to get from him information concerning the different changes in the tariff, but I would pcint out that this application has been before the department for almost two years; that two Budgets have been brought down and that we have never received ajjy information. I would ask the minister if he could not give this matter his consideration with a view to seeing whether these cotton yarns could not be1 placed upon the free list. If he. cannot, he should tell the committee now, in order that I may be in a position to transfer the information to the stockholders of this company, why this yam is not to be placed upon the free list.


William Thomas White: I am obliged to my hon. friend for the information which he has given me. He is, no doubt, aware that no tariff changes are announced Or no information given with respect to the modification of tariff rates except in the Budget speech. Facts are brought to the attention of the Minister from time to time and requests are made for tariff action. I frequently receive letters from

parties-and their names are legion-asking me what I propose to do with regard to their requests, and my answer, couched always in very courteous terms, is that they will have to wait until tariff announcements are made in the Budget. The matter to which my hon. friend draws my attention might, I think, be dealt with in two ways. It might be dealt with in the Budget or it might be dealt with by Order in Council, because the Governor in Council, has the power, under existing legislation, to reduce or to remove the duties upon articles which enter into the manufacture of Canadian products. All that I can say to my hon. friend at the present moment-and I am sure that he will acquit me of any discourtesy-is that I shall be glad to give the matter careful consideration with a view to seeing whether or not anything can be done in the premises.


Georges Henri Boivin: I quite understand that the hon. minister cannot make any announcement of tariff policy to-night or at any other time, except in the Budget speech, but I thought in view of the fact that the request had been refused, that the reason for that refusal might be given. That would not be a tariff announcement.


William Thomas White: In a matter as complicated as the tariff, it is not feasible to give reasons for a refusal, because such diametrically opposite views exist with respect to tariff changes that on that ground alone it is not well that such reasons should be reduced to writing. My hon. friend will have to rest content with the answer which I give to all other parties making requests with regard to tariff matters: That if the Government has any announcement to make it will be either in the Budget or by action of the Order in Council. That is all that any Minister of Finance is able to say with respect to inquiries regarding tariff matters.


Mr. STANFIELD:: Did I understand the hon. member for Shefford to say that the people manufacturing this material could not get combed yarn in Canada?
Mr. BO'IVIN: I am not a member of the company, nor have I any direct interest in the undertaking, but I have been informed by the manager of the concern that it is impossible to get in Canada combed yarn for the manufacture of elastic webbing.


John Stanfield: The hon. gentleman may be interested to learn that it may be

obtained in large quantities from the Dominion Cotton Company.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
577. Silk in the gum or spun silk, when imported by manufacturers of silk thread, silk underwear or of woven labels, for use exclusively in the manufacture of such articles in their own factories-British preferential, free; intermediate, free; general, free.
William Thomas White: I desire to change the
wording of this item so that it will read as follows:
Silk in the gum or spun silk when imported by manufacturers of silk underwear or of woven labels and spun silk, when imported by manufacturers of silk thread, when used exclusively for the manufacture of such artcles in their own factories, free.
Item as amended agreed to.
575. Embroidery, n.o.p., lace, n.o.p., braids, n.o.p.. etc.-British preferential, 25 per cent; intermediate, 32J per cent; general, 35 per cent.


George Perry Graham: Will that interfere with the cost of raw materials to the manufacturers of suspenders in Canada?


William Thomas White: I think not. We are simply inserting tapes because they cannot be distinguished for administration purposes from braids. I do not think it is an important item. No objection has been raised as far as I know to its inclusion in this item.


George Perry Graham: I had an inquiry from a manufacturer in my own town asking about it and I was not prepared to say what the effect would be.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
651a. Buttons of vegetable ivory, per gross- British preferential, 5 cents and 20 per cent; intermediate, 5 cents and 30 per cent; general, 5 cents and 30 per cent.
William Stewart Loggie: Why is it necessary to add this high specific duty?


William Thomas White: It is due to the fact that manufacturers of buttons from vegetable ivory in Canada are subject to keen competition from Austria and Germany, the product of Austria being entitled to entry under the intermediate tariff. We have increased the rates on these buttons of vegetable ivory with a view of making conditions less trying to the Canadian manufacturer. I think it is a necessary change.


William Stewart Loggie: It seems to me that the specific duty added to the thirty per cent ad valorem makes a very high rate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
On resolution No. 5-prohibited goods:
George Perry Graham: The Customs Department ought to be careful that the officers know an aigrette when they see it. I was on a train and the customs officer was inclined to take a cheap plume from a lady, thinking, from the minister's speech, that it was one of the articles prohibited.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
William Thomas White: In item 1023 I want to omit after the word ' bars ' the words ' or turned and polished shafting so that the item will read:
Rolled hexagon iron or steel bars when used in the manufacture of cold drawn or cold rolled iron or steel bars.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Why are those words being left out?


William Thomas White: If my hon. friend will allow me I will give that information to-morrow. It is so technical that I shall have to consult the experts. There are two resolutions, Nos. 29 and 31, of Government orders that relate to the tariff. I am advised that they may be taken up by the Committee of Ways and Means. I would ask if you, Mr. Chairman, or Mr. Speaker, see any objection to this course. They relate to the drawback provision in respect to duties paid on pig-iron imported into Canada and entering into the production of articles exported by Canadian manufacturers and into the manufacture of mowers, reapers and binders. It is my intention, because I think it inadvisable to have two tariff Bills in one session, that No. 31 should be included in this resolution so that all may be embodied in one Bill. No. 29 is a separate matter and will be covered by a separate Bill.


The CHAIRMAN:: I have no objection.


William Thomas White: I shall be prepared to give information on resolutions 29 and 31 if the House desires it.


George Perry Graham: Is not the explanation practically what we have been discussing to-night; it synchronizes with what we have been debating. You have to have those resolutions in order to carry out your tariff.


William Thomas White: No. 31 is a resolution relating to the Customs tariff, and I am advised that I can move it now. My hon. friends opposite, I think, understand my object in making this change, which is for the purpose of benefiting the steel industry. Manufacturers of goods for export into which pig-iron enters as a basic mate-

rial, and manufacturers of the articles mentioned in this resolution 31 on the Order Paper, who are entitled to a drawback in respect of their manufactures of mowing machines, reapers, harvesters, binders and attachments for binders, find it to their advantage to buy all their pig-iron from abroad rather than in Canada. It is at their request and after they have directed the attention of the Government to this matter on more than one occasion that we have decided to bring down this legislation. I explained it rather fully on the occasion of the Budget, and I do not think it is necessary to go into it now. The only question now is a matter of procedure. I would ask that Order No. 29 be not included in these resolutions, as it is an amendment to the Customs Act. No. 31 is an amendment to the Customs tariff, and it is the latter that I am anxious to have covered by the Bill which I shall introduce in respect to these resolutions, so that it will suffice, Mr. Chairman, if you include in the resolutions Order No. 31 on the Order Paper.


John Howard Sinclair: I did not catch the effect of the minister's amendment to item 1023, where he struck out the words ' or turned and polished shafting.' Does that mean that the manufacturers of shafting shall not get a drawback?


William Thomas White: The information I have is that rolled hexagon iron or steel bars are not used for shafting.
Resolutions reported, read the first and the second time and concurred in.
On motion of Mr. White, the House adjourned at 11.33 p.m.
Friday, May 1, 1914.