1922-06-17

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 151 (from the Senate), respecting The Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia Railway Company.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Martell, Bill No. 152 (from the Senate), to amend The Cold Storage Warehouse Act, was read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, there appears in the list of public bills and orders, under No. 30, an order which reads as follows :
April 24-Second Reading of Bid No. 54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code.-Mr. Kennedy (Edmonton).
A reference to page 1446 unrevised Hansard discloses the fact that this bill has already been read the second time and that a motion was made by its sponsor that the House go into committee upon it. Apparently I was out of the House at the
time, and the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), who was leading the Opposition, asked that in my absence, as I wished to speak on the bill, the consideration of it in committee be postponed. It therefore appears to have been postponed without any fault whatever on the part of the sponsor of the bill. It should, though, appear now on the Order Paper as in committee rather than for second reading. What I wish to mention particularly is that, in view of a great deal of public interest attaching to the amendment now sought to be repealed and of an almost unbelievable degree of misconception surrounding it, the Government should see that this bill is reached, even if, for the purpose, it is required to be called among the Government Orders. It would be very regrettable indeed if the session were to go through without the bill being reached. I would like to have it brought up on Monday.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: There will be no objection to meeting the wishes of my hon. friend in this matter.



LEGISLATION PENDING

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I desire to implement
a promise I made yesterday to inform the House, as to any additional (legislation which the Government is likely to propose at the present session.' In addition to what appears on the Order Paper and in Votes and Proceedings of yesterday, the Government proposes to introduce the following: Further supplementary estimates; amendments to the Income Tax Act; amendments to the Oleomargarine Act; amendments to the Three Rivers Harbour Commissioners Act; amendments to the Naturalization Act. Such legislation will also be introduced as may necessarily arise out of reports of the committees of the House, particularly the committee dealing with transportation rates and the committee dealing with soldiers' civil re-establishment. I do not wish to say that this is the final word; some small measure may come up which the Government has not in mind at the moment. But I think I can say that this will include practically all the legislation to be introduced.



INCOME TAX-NATURALIZATION

Arthur Meighen: May I ask what is
the proposed extent of the amendments to the Naturalization Act and the Income Tax
Business of the House

Act, and also if the Government will be able by (Monday to introduce these bills and explain briefly their purpose? That certainly should be done; it is very late now for these measures to be forecasted for the first time.


Mr. FIELDING:: With regard to the income tax, it is not likely that the amendments will be extensive. There will be a provision regarding exemptions. A difficulty has also arisen in regard to commercial travellers, who have claimed that they were rather unfairly treated. Our endeavour is to meet the point that is raised. There is also something with regard to dependents. The bill is not a large one, but it touches on these three points. I hope to be able to introduce it on Monday.


Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State):: Regarding the Naturalization Act, I am not in a position to give definite information at the moment as my deputy only brought it to my notice to-day. The amendment is not of very great importance, and I hope to be in a position to make a statement to the House with regard to it on Monday.



SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Marquette) :: When will the Supplementary Estimates be forthcoming?


William Stevens Fielding: I am exercising my best efforts to get them ready for the House. I do not like to say definitely, but I hope I shall be able to present them on Monday, and if not, on Tuesday. My hon. friend knows that it is not always easy to collect these estimates from the various departments, but we are doing the best we can.



IMMIGRATION-CRIMINAL CODE

Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg):: When may we expect a report from the special committee appointed to deal with amendments to the Immigration Act and the Criminal Code? These bills were introduced at the very beginning of the session, and we have not yet had any report.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not see the chairman of the committee in the House, but I am informed there is a notice in the Votes and Proceedings that a motion will be made on Monday.



ORIENTAL IMMIGRATION

Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: May I be permittted to ask the

Prime Minister if he will make an announcement before the House prorogues as to the Government's policy regarding the effective restriction of oriental immigration, and also as to the result of his negotiations with the Chinese Ambassador, who was lately in Ottawa, and with the Japanese Consul General?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may answer my hon. friend at once that the policy of the Government is to bring about effective restriction. As these negotiations have not yet been concluded, I doubt whether it will be possible to make an announcement to the House before the session is over.



CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier) :: A newspaper despatch announced last night that there is a well founded rumour in London that the vessels of the merchant marine have been offered for sale on the London market to British interests.
I hope the good news is true. Can the Government give us any information?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I imagine it is a newspaper report.


Samuel William Jacobs: Sometimes newspaper reports are correct.


Arthur Meighen: I have no doubt it would be good news to many private interests.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Ways and Means.-Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
X. Resolved, That The Customs Tariff, 1907, be amended by repealing Section 12A, added : thereto by Section 5 of The Customs Tariff Amendment Act, 1921, and by inserting in place thereof the following Section:-
12A. The Governor in Council may from time to time as he deems it expedient, order that goods of any description or class specified in such order, imported into Canada, shall be marked, stamped, branded or labelled in legible English or French words, in a conspicuous place that shall not be covered or obscured by any subsequent attachments or arrangements, so as to indicate the country of origin. Said marking, stamping, branding or labelling shall be as nearly indelible and permanent as the nature of the goods will permit.
All orders made by the Governor in Council under this Section shall have effect from and after the day on which the same are published in The Canada Gazette, or from and after such later day as is appointed for the purpose in such

Customs Tariff
orders, and during such time as is therein expressed, or if no time is expressed for that purpose, then until the same art revoked or altered.
Provided that all such goods imported into Canada after the date of the coming into force of any such order of the Governor in Council which do not comply with the requirements of such order, shall he subject to an additional duty of ten per centum ad valorem to he levied on the value for duty purposes, and in addition such goods shall not he released from Customs possession until they have been so marked, stamped, branded or labelled under Customs supervision at the expense of the importer.
Provided further that if any person shall violate any of the provisions so established relating to the marking, stamping, branding or labelling of any such imported goods, or shall deface, destroy, remove, alter, or obliterate any such marks, stamps, brands or labels, with intent to conceal the information given by or contained in such marks, stamps, brands or labels, he shall be liable on summary conviction tp a penalty not exceeding one thousand dollars, or to imprisonment not exceeding one year, or to both fine and imprisonment.
The Minister of Customs and Excise may make such regulations as are deemed necessary for carrying out the provisions of this Section and for the enforcement thereof.
William Stevens Fielding: This is the resolution which repeals the Marking Act as a general law, and authorizes the Governor in Council to deal with the matter under exceptional conditions.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: I wonder if the minister has taken cognizance of the fact that the United States have a Marking Act practically the same as our old Marking Act, and that Canadian products have from time to time been held up under that act? If the hon. gentleman has taken cognizance of that, I should like to know on what principle he proposes to administer the power given to the Government to put into force what is really the old act, because, after all, the new law recognizes the advisability and desirability, nay, the necessity, of marking at the present time, but leaves it to the discretion of the Government to say what shall be marked, instead of leaving it to the Government to make special exceptions where marking is not convenient. I rise for the purpose of ascertaining, first, the view of the Government as to the American legislation, and, second, the underlying principle upon which these new regulations will be administered.


William Stevens Fielding: There is, I understand, an act of that character in operation in the United States, and I have no doubt it could readily be made very embarrassing. This resolution simply repeals the Marking
Act as it was passed last year, and restricts it to particular cases which may be determined by the Governor in Council. It has been found by experience that the Marking Act is an exceedingly difficult thing to administer. My hon. friend found it so, because the act was passed and a date, fixed for its coming into operation, and he had to postpone its coming into operation until a further time, and did not apply the act. That must have shown him that there were great difficulties in the way. Difficulties might readily exist in enforcing a law which was to be applied generally which would not exist in the case of a law which was to be applied to particular cases that might arise, so instead of having a general Marking Act applied to products generally, which undoubtedly was difficult, embarrassing, and inconvenient, we are taking power to deal with certain exceptional cases that may arise. That is the principle upon which we are working.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That hardly
answers my question. I freely admit that there are difficulties in looking after any new regulations. No matter how beneficial a regulation may be, one has to recognize special conditions and make modifications. I think that last year we had covered a very large number of special conditions and were practically in a position to enforce the law without hardship. What I want to find out now is, the principle on which the Government is going to apply these regulations. The hon. minister says, " in special cases." What is a "special" case? Is the underlying principle the idea that the Canadian public ought to have knowledge of whose goods they are buying? Is the underlying principle to give effect to the spirit of the act in all cases where it can be shown that no damage to the goods will result from the marking? Or is it the idea that there are to be special cases, with special pressure, and some special considerations each time? What is the principle?


William Stevens Fielding: There is no principle, implied or suggested, extending any special favours. The principle is that if you have a disagreeable thing to do you had1 better not do too much of it. That in itself is a good, sound principle. In the application of this act what my hon. friend proposed was found to be practically impossible; he worked out regulations and found that it could not be done. What we propose is

Customs Tariff

this:Instead of applying the general law and disturbing trade generally, we will deal with any particular case that is brought before us. I really do not think I can make my explanation any clearer. There is no doubt that the principle of this act involved a threat; at all events the fact that the act was to come into operation was a cause of annoyance and irritation to the business men of the community. My hon. friend must have been aware of that, I am sure he had representations along that line, and it is an undoubted fact that the Marking Act was intended to make importation more difficult. Someone has said-perhaps unkindly-in the recent debate that the act was intended to make importation difficult, and practically was a measure to increase the protection, and I am not sure but that such was the tenor, or at all events, the purpose of the act. If our manufacturers in Canada wish to be protected as respects their own brand the thought just came to me "Why do they not mark their goods 'Made in Canada'?" That is simple, they can do that easily enough. If we cannot exercise control in the marking of foreign goods, we can control the marking of our own goods made in Canada. If the mark made in Canada is a good mark, and I hope it is, and one that we ought to be proud of, I w'ould suggest that our Canadian manufacturers mark their goods "Made in Canada." Then we will know that any article not so branded is imported, and in that way we will be able to protect the home manufacturer when his brand is a good one. I think there is merit in the suggestion. However, so far as the principal aim of the act is concerned I regret that I do not think I can make it clearer to my hon. friend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What my hon. friend says with regard to the marking of goods in other countries may he quite true, but he could very well look after the importations from other countries that are not earmarked. The whole thing revolves around the question as to whether the government, in enforcing these regulations, have any regard to the interests of the Canadian purchaser bearing in mind what we look upon as his right to know whether or not he is buying German goods or English goods. Of course, if the Government are against that idea, these regulations will very largely be either a matter of special privilege or a dead letter; it must be either one thing or the other. We merely want to know where we are in connection

with this matter. The Finance Minister says it is impossible to work out the law. But the Americans have had that law and have worked it very successfully in the protection of American industry and of the American public:


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend had the matter in his hands for months and found the law unworkable, and that is a better illustration than the American law.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
2. Resolved, That schedule A to The Customs Tariff, 1907, as amended by Chapter twenty-six of the Statutes of 1914, by Chapter five of the Statutes of 1914 (second session), by Chapter seventeen of the Statutes of 1918, by Chapter forty-seven of the Statutes of 1919, by Chapter twenty-seven of the Statutes of 1921, and by Orders in Council, be further amended by striking thereout tariff items:-20, 21, 22, 23, 134, 143, 208, 219a, 220, 326, 398, 399, 427, 445, 446, 446b, 447, 448, 517, 520, 521, 522, 523, 565, 566, 567, 568, 575, 591, 611, 611a, 612, 619, 621, 631, 638a, 657a, 660, 682, 705a, the several enumerations of goods respectively, and the several rates of duties of Customs, if any, set opposite each of said items, and to repeal section (b) of the Orders in Council, P.C. 2654, dated twenty-seventh day of November, 1907 designated as item 715 of The Customs Tariff, section 2 (b) of Orders in Council, P.C. 16/1556, dated fifth day of June, 1912, designated as item 762 of The Customs Tariff, P.C. 224 and P.C. 2/233, dated thirtieth day of January, 1919, and P.C. 383, dated twentieth day of February, 1919, and to provide that the following items, enumerations and rates of duty be inserted in schedule A:-
William Stevens Fielding: We will take up the ensuing changes item by item if the committee so desires.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, item by item.


William Stevens Fielding: There is one item,
gasoline, in regard to which I desire to propose a change when it is reached, otherwise the items stand as they appear in the resolution.
'Customs tariff-Cocoa paste or "liquor" and chocolate paste or "liquor", not sweetened, in blocks or cakes, per pound: British Preferential tariff, 3 cents; Intermediate tariff, 4 cents; General tariff, 5 cents.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We had
better have some understanding as to just what is being done. My hon. friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I think the old rates were 31, 4 and 4.


William Stevens Fielding: No, 4, 5 and 5 were the old rates.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The old rates, as I have them, were 31, 4 and 4, so that

Customs Tariff
there is an increase of 5 cents in the general tariff and a decrease of one-half a cent in the preferential rate.


William Stevens Fielding: The figures that I have are 4, 4 and 5. The new figures are 3, 4 and 5, so that there is a slight reduction.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The item is founded on tariff item 'No. 20. I find on looking at the official tariff that the figures are 31, 4 and 4. I wanted to know whether it was intended to raise the general tariff.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend has omitted a later change. He will find the figures as I gave them-4, 5 and 5-so that there is a reduction.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The result is a reduction of one-half a cent on the preferential tariff?


William Stevens Fielding: No, a reduction of one cent. The rate of four cents is reduced to three.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-Ooco-a paste or "liquor" and chocolate paste or "liquor", sweetened, in blocks or cakes, not less than two pounds in weight, per pound: British Preferential tariff, 4 cents; Intermediate tariff, 4i cents; General tariff, 5J cents.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Is there not a reduction of one cent here?


William Stevens Fielding: A reduction of half a cent in each case.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-Preparation of cocoa or chocolate powder form:	British Preferential
tariff, 22J p.c.; Intermediate tariff, 27i p.c.; General tariff, 35 p.c.
Henry Lumley Drayton: There is a reduction there in the general rate, I think.


William Stevens Fielding: The general rate is 35; it remains unchanged. The preferential rate is changed; it was 27h, it is now 22i.


Mr. GOOD:: I would ask the Minister of Finance if this rate covers cans of cocoa that are sold in the grocery stores?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, that is the intention.
Customs tariff-Preparation of cocoa or chocolate, n.o.p., and confectionery, coated with or containing chocolate, the weight of the wrappings and cartons to be included in the weight for duty, per pound: British Preferential tariff, 1J p.c.; Intermediate tariff, li p.c.; General tariff, 1J p.c.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-All sugar above number sixteen Dutch standard in colour, and all refined sugars of whatever kinds, grades or standards, not covered by tariff item: British Preferential tariff, 20 p.c.; Intermediate taiiff, 27J p.c.; General tariff, 35 p.c.
Sir- HENRY DRAYTON: I should think perhaps this item might be taken as read after the assurance given by the minister as to what is being proposed here.
William Stevens Fielding: There is a slight reduction in the British preference.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And the
other items are rated in proportion?


William Stevens Fielding: Are rated in proportion.
Customs Tariff-Cigars, the weight of the bands and ribbons to be included m the weight for duty, per pound: British Preferential Tariff $3.90 and 25 per cent, Intermediate tariff $3.90 and 25 per cent, General tariff $3.90 and 25 per cent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know whether we should discuss that particular item now, or discuss it under the excise items. They really are interwoven one with the other.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes. I can tell the hon. member, exactly what we propose. There is an excise duty on cigars of $6 per thousand, irrespective of weight. We are making it $3 per thousand, and we are adjusting the import duties to correspond. We are not gaining in the cigar tax any material increase of revenue. The effect would be, taking the customs, and the excise and special war revenue together, that the higher class would pay a little more, the medium priced cigar will pay taxes as now, and the tax on the lower priced cigar will be reduced. It is a readjustment without increase, in the somewhat famous way my hon. friend may have heard of in bygone years.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am inclined to believe that my hon. friend will get no more revenue. I will go a little bit further, and say that he will be getting no more revenue in connection with these tobaccos I am glad he has made the adjustments he has in connection with the other commodities he has referred to.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs Tariff-Cigarettes, the weight of the paper covering to be included in the weight for duty per pound: British Preferential tariff $4.70 and 25 per cent, Intermediate tariff $4.70 and 25 per cent, General tariff $4.70 and 25 per cent.	.
Customs Tariff
William Stevens Fielding: That is a readjustment to correspond, for the purpose stated.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-super-calendared or machine finish grades of book paper, not coated, when used exclusively in the production of magazines, newspapers and periodicals, printed, published or issued regularly under regulations prescribed by the Minister of Customs and Excise: British Preferential tariff 12J per cent, Intermediate tariff 22i per cent, General tariff 25 per cent.
William Stevens Fielding: The object of that is to make a slight decrease in the British preference on the class of paper used in magazines. [DOT]


Henry Lumley Drayton: The result of the change is that there is 2! per cent decrease in the British preference, the other items standing exactly the same.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-coated papers, when used exclusively in the production of magazines, newspapers and periodicals printed published and issued regularly under regulations prescribed by the Minister of Customs and Excise: British Preferential tariff 17\ per cent, Intermediate tariff 32J per cent, General Tariff 35 per cent.
Henry Lumley Drayton: The old tariff, as I have it, would give 22i as against the 17i, the other charges remaining the same. Is that correct?


William Stevens Fielding: There is a reduction
of 5 per cent, in that case, in the British Preference.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And the
others are just the same?
Mr, FIELDING:	Yes.


William Charles Good: I should like to know about
the extent of the production in Canada,- how much of this line of goods is manufactured in Canada, compared with what is imported.


William Stevens Fielding: There is no classification, I am afraid, which enables us to distinguish as the hon. member desires. This paper is used exclusively in the magazine business.


William Charles Good: The reason I asked the
question is that I had an opportunity of visiting some coating mills in Ontario and had a conversation with some of the men connected with them. One gentleman, in particular, an Englishman, who was very familiar with the manufacture of paper in the Old Country, stated that the Canadian manufacturers were very much behind the times in their methods. We are giving a very high protection on this partic-

ular line of commodity-35 per cent-and I think, before we pass the item, we ought to be reasonably sure that we are not encouraging the maintenance of these old-fashioned and obsolete methods of manufacture. It, seems a very high protection.


William Stevens Fielding: I think, in the case
of the items of the general tariff, hon. members should bear in mind that I stated that it was not our intention to reduce the general tariff on goods expected to come from the United States. We made exceptions in a few cases, but, speaking generally, we did not desire, at the present time and for reasons given, to reduce the duties on American goods, and that is the reason that the present item remains at 35 per cent. The magazine publishers made a plea for some further consideration in various forms. They think they are suffering an injustice, and to this extent, giving them a reduction on that class of goods in the British preference, we are meeting their wishes. This class of paper is not imported to any extent from Great Britain, but I am advised that very likely it will be.


William Charles Good: If the effect will be to encourage the importation from Great Britain, as compared with the United States, I see some justification for the position the minister takes; otherwise, it seems to me, it will be working a hardship to the Canadian consumers of paper. Some little time ago I had a communication-and probably other members received the same communication-'from the Canadian publishers of magazines dealing with the cost of their coated paper, and1 I appreciate the disabilities under which they are labouring. I would like to know whether or not this change is going to meet the situation as presented to us.


William Stevens Fielding: Very few changes we make will fully meet the desire's of those who make the representations. As far as it goes, it is in the right direction. I think they will get a considerable quantity of British paper under this item. That remains to be seen, but, as respects the duty on the American paper, my hon. friend will appreciate the reason I gave for the course that has been followed.


Mr. HOCKEN:: I have not very much objection to the duty, but I wish some method could be found by which the Canadian publisher could be protected against the American magazines which come in. Two

Customs Tariff
or three years ago, I had occasion to investigate this, and 'I discovered that paper could (be bought in Buffalo at such low prices that the goods could be landed in Toronto with the duty paid, at exactly the same price as paid in Canada.


Mr. McMASTER:: Is not that usually the case?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: It looked to me as
though the duty had been added. I am in favour, Mr. Chairman, of giving adequate protection to our paper .mills, but I would like to find some method by which the hon. minister could prevent the finished article coming in. It is not only in the interests of the publishers, but in the interests of the sentiment of this country, that this should be done. The way Canada is flooded with American magazines to-day is not in the best interests of this country, :f we are going to build up a Canadian nation.


Samuel William Jacobs: Why?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Because these magazines teach everything they have in the United States, and. are simply a boost for the United States. It is impossible, with the competition we have, for any man, I do not care what amount of money he may have to invest, to establish a magazine in Canada that can hold its place. He cannot get the circulation that will warrant the advertising rates, and if a man spent two or three million dollars trying to establish a Canadian magazine, he could not succeed in competition with the magazines from the United States. If it were necessary, I could recite to this House a score of magazines that have been started in this country, and a large amount of money spent in trying to establish them, but without success. The Canadian Courier was one paper that was started. Something like a quarter of a million dollars was expended upon it. There was a really patriotic motive behind the publisher in that case; he did his best to establish a Canadian magazine to express Canadian sentiment, to be a market for Canadian writers and Canadian illustrators. After spending a large amount of money, he was compelled to suspend publication. The same thing applies to many other Canadian magazines. The Local Council of Women started the Canadian Century; but they were unable to carry on their magazine, although that is a very large organization. I do not suggest that a change should be made now; but at the next session, I should like to
see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) go into this question very fully, in order to find out if there is not some way of affording to Canadian publishers a measure of protection that would make it possible for real Canadian magazines to be established in this country. The best success that has been obtained in the way of a general magazine is, I think, by Maclean's, and yet I venture to say that it is not a money-making proposition by any means. No Canadian magazine will be a money-making proposition unless some impost is put on the finished article coming in from the United States.


Mr. KYTE:: I never was in thorough
accord with the protectionist sentiments of my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) ; but we have here a new feature of protection which the hon. member is endeavouring to fasten upon this country, that is, to " protect " the people against selecting their literature. Surely, if there is in the world anything which ought to be free, and as regards which a person ought to make his individual choice, it is the sort of literature that he desires to read. It is regrettable that money invested in Canadian magazines has not given returns to those whose desire was to establish such magazines; nevertheless, I do not think the reading public of Canada ought to be penalized on account of their failure. I am not aware that many magazines are published in Canada. From time to time some attempts have been made to publish in Canada magazines, some of which were fairly good, others mediocre, and another class that did not deserve very much encouragement. If United States publishers will produce a class of magazine literature that aims to satisfy the reading instinct and impulse of the people of Canada, it would be protection run mad to prevent the Canadian people from enjoying such literature.


Mr. FORKE:: I do not think any one in this House will accuse me of being a protectionist. At the same time, I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) in regard to magazine literature. Perhaps, Sir, you would not so imagine, but I have had some connection with the Sunday schools, and I find that in all those Sunday school papers, every illustration you get as to great national figures, men whose lives and characters are worth copying, is drawn from United States statesmen or leaders in public life in the United States.

Customs Tariff
I do not think that is a very good thing as regards creating a national spirit and sentiment. When we come to the matter of magazines, one of the great difficulties which we have to overcome in this country is the fact that men with great literary ability in a very short time go to New York, Chicago or some other place where they can be paid more money than they can get from Canadian magazines. I do not say I should like protection; but I should like to see every encouragement possible [DOT] given to the Canadian literature and Canadian magazines. We talk about trading with the Americans as regards buying implements-if you will allow me to use that illustration-and other goods; but more insidious than anything else as regards creating a national .feeling is the literature that the people read. American firms, in our picture shows, and in magazines to be read in our households, will do more to frustrate the creation of a national spirit in Canada than any other means that I know of. I do not know just what steps I should like to see taken, but I should like to see Canadian literature and magazines of every kind encouraged in every possible way.


Mr. MacLAREN:: I should like to point out that the difficulty Canadian magazines face in obtaining the success and wide circulation that one so often sees in the case of American magazines, does not depend upon an inferiority in the articles contained in Canadian magazines. I do not think Canadian magazines need fear the competition of American magazines from the standpoint of literary value, ability and interest. What, then, is the difference? The difference is, I think, due to the advertisements that are contained in American magazines. The circulation of many of them is very much greater than the circulation a Canadian magazine can have, certainly at the outset; and when advertisements are placed in magazines which obtain a very wide circulation, as is the case in newspapers, a very large revenue is obtained from such advertisements. This enables Americans to compete only too successfully with our magazines. The advantage which they have over us is not from a literary standpoint so much as from the revenue obtained from their advertisements. If, without imposing any special tax on American magazines per se as periodicals or literary papers, it could be that such magazines so far as they contain advertise-

ments should be taxed, then this Country would certainly lose nothing from an educational standpoint, but it would give our people an advantage in producing magazines; for the American magazines would not obtain the enormous circulation they now obtain in Canada, and which they are largely enabled to obtain by the revenue derived from those advertisements.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In common, no doubt, with many other hon. members, I am quite sure, in common with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), I have received the following telegram:
The Canadian magazine and periodical publishers have appealed for relief from their present impossible and intolerable position and have suggested three methods:	1. Application of
present duty on printed and adverfising matter to the advertising appearing in foreign magazines and periodicals;	2. Application of the
present duty and import tax to paper coming into Canada in the form of finished magazines and periodicals; 3. Removal of all duty on paper, ink, engravings, art work and other materials used in or for the manufacture of magazines and periodicals. Unless some measure of relief is granted some of our members must either cease publication of their magazines or make arrangements to have them printed in the United States and shipped into Canada by freight, as United States magazines now are, thus avoiding all duties and import tax and depriving Canadian employees in paper mills, ink manufacturers, engravers, electrotypers and printers, of employment. We earnestly request that something be done at this session of Parliament to alleviate our ruinous position.
I assume that these representations have been made to my hon. friend. I do not know whether he agrees with them or not, or whether he thinks it is possible for the Canadian magazines to carry on under present conditions. But I do know that there is a very great deal of truth in what has been here set forth. I know, for example, that the American magazines come over in carload lots to different points in the country, whence they are distributed, and that we get no revenue out of them in connection with our postal service, except the small postage they pay. I also know, and I think every hon. gentleman knows, that very serious representations have been made from time to time by numerous patriotic and religious societies against the importation of American magazines. And the objection to these magazines is not confined to these bodies. The Great War Veterans have taken no uncertain stand against the circulation of Hearst's magazines in Canada, and the point has been taken that these magazines, in a large number of cases, cannot in any way be said

Customs Tariff
to be either instructive or properly amusing, but merely salacious. From the list of magazines submitted to me I should think that there is some ground at least for that view. Now, we are really considering a serious question, in this connection, having regard to our Canadian national life. After all, the spirit of a country as well as its character depends in no small degree upon its literature. Do we want that literature to be Canadian, or do we not? That really is the bald question that we have to consider. It is idle to talk about Canadian magazines being in a position to compete with the American magazines. Why, the magazine published in the United States has advertisers who pay rates on advertisements intended for a market of 114,000,000, and as hon. gentlemen undoubtedly know, the advertising revenues are the great stand-by of these publications, their very lifeblood; and that revenue depends upon the circulation which the magazine enjoys. The American advertiser has not only the home field, but he has the Canadian market thrown in besides. American publications are scattered broadcast throughout Canada. They contain- and properly so-purely American advertisements and American ideas; certainly they do not propagate any Canadian thoughts. It would be quite impossible for any Canadian manufacturer or producer to pay the advertising rates paid by the American producer and manufacturer. He cannot get into the American market, for their Marking Act, among other things, sees to that. They, on the other hand, can, and do get in here. Here, then, you have a mixed question. You have the question, on the one hand, as to whether a Canadian national spirit is worth while or not; and you have also the question as to whether or not you want to make it all the easier for American goods to flood this country. My opinion is that the complaint of the magazine publishers is well founded. I do not think that any of them is in a proper position to compete with the American publishers. The Canadian publishers are, I believe, all in a more or less difficult situation. Looking at the matter from every standpoint,-the creation of a distinctive Canadian literature being not the least important consideration by any means-we might at least do as much for our Canadian publishers as we 4 p.m. do for Canadian hardware or anything else. We have a tariff of 15 cents per pound on advertising materials, and as hon. gentlemen know, who
read these magazines, a very large part of them consists almost entirely of advertisements. Some of these magazines, indeed, are printed largely for, and maintained by, advertisers, but simply because they are called magazines and publish a few articles they come into Canada free. Why should not the law calling for an impost of 15 cents a pound on advertising matter be applied to the advertisements contained in these magazines? At least, why could not something be done, by way of a tariff regulation, to look after and help Canadian literature?


William Stevens Fielding: There is much that
can be said from the publisher's point of view. My hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) puts the question broadly: do we, or do we not, want American magazines? Well, some people may reply, that is a question for the individual buyer to decide for himself. If he buys American magazines it must be because he wants to read them; and there is no restriction to-day of the liberty of the Canadian people )to buy American magazines in preference to Canadian publications if they desire to do so. I must confess that I have every sympathy with the point of view of the Canadian publishers, and have been impressed during the interviews I have had with them on the question. But the question is not a new one. It does not come before me to-day for the first time, and I am sure it was brought before my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) in more than one year. It is, comparatively speaking, an old question. Every government that has had to deal with it has come to the same conclusion, that very much can be said in regard to the hardship which the Canadian magazine suffers; but no government, so far, has been prepared to impose a tax on American magazines. If we are sinning in this matter to-day, therefore, we are sihning in the company of my hon. friend who has had to deal with the same problem and has reached the same conclusion. My hon. friend referred to various resolutions passed by the Great War Veterans and others regarding Hearst's publications. That, of course, is a different question; it has reference altogether to a particular magazine which is anti-British in spirit; and although I do not advocate the repression of the right of the people to buy even these magazines if they desire to do so, I grant that this question is open to consideration. The representations that have been made in regard to these particular
Customs Tariff

magazines, however, do not urge any tariff proposal or anything of that kind, hut suggest that the magazines should be prohibited the use of the mails. If a collection of advertising matter printed in the United States is brought into Canada as such, it is subject to a tax of 15 cents per pound; but advertisements incorporated in magazines may come in free. I frankly admit that the matter presents a problem, and I wish that I knew of some legitimate way by which we could help Canadian magazines, which I have no doubt are suffering a hardship. We are doing little now, but what we are doing is in to direction of some assistance.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My	hon.
friend would like to know what remedy can be applied. Why not tax the advertising matter?


William Stevens Fielding: For the same reason
that the hon. member did not do that a year ago.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That	is a
poor reason. Surely my hon. friend will not take that stand. I admit that he is adopting a whole lot of our ways of a year ago, and is indeed going a hundred per cent further.


William Stevens Fielding: A hundred per cent
better.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not better.
But I should like to point out that as a matter of fact I never declined that relief. I thought that it ought to be granted, and if the accident of December 6th last had not occurred, I can assure my hon. friend, the interests of the Canadian magazines would have been protected. The minister would like to protect those interests. Well, there are two ways in which he can help the Canadian magazines. First, he might charge that 15 cents per pound on advertising matter contained in these magazines; or, if that is too complicated a system, he could put a tax of so much per pound-5 or 10 cents, or whatever rate is deemed advisable-on all magazines imported. So that under the British preferential tariff there would be no duty at all on magazines; under the general tariff it would be five or ten cents a pound, as the case might be.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: There is another aspect of this question that ought to be mentioned. I think these magazines that come in from the United States ought to come under the dumping clause. They are certainly sold

in Canada in some cases at twenty-five per cent of the cost of production. There are magazines coming in from the* United States, consisting of from 100 to 150 pages, printed on photo paper and selling at ten cents or thereabouts, which could not be produced' in this country at less than 25 cents a copy. I do not object to any man buying the kind of literature that he desires, but I do object to discrimination against our publications, because that is exactly what it amounts to-discrimination against our own manufacturers, as the exMinister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) has said. There is one publication coming into, this country and circulating to the extent of 100,000 copies a month, and a Canadian manufacturer who wants to get into that paper has to pay a rate of $7,000 a page. He has to pay that for the 100,000 circulation in Canada, but he has to pay, of course, also for a further circulation of 1,500,000, although only the 100,000 is of any value to himj. That is the most extreme case I have to offer, but other publications come close to that amount. So that if you take only two of these publications, you have one with a weekly circulation of
100,000	copies, carrying not a single advertisement of a Canadian dealer, and another with a monthly circulation of 100,000, from which also the Canadian dealer is excluded. Our newspapers are full of the "Made in Canada" campaign, yet we are facilitating the advertising of purely American-made articles in publications to which the Canadian manufacturer cannot get access. It is worth while considering, Mr. Chairman, whether these publications, which come in by the carload, as the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) says, should not come under the dumping clause or ibe taxed in some other way so as to make possible the creation in Canada of a Canadian national magazine. If I were to choose 'between American maga-ines and others coming from outside of our own country, I would prefer the British magazines; but perhaps they are not made up just to the liking of the Canadian people, owing to the fact that modern taste in this respect has been developed by education carried on by the United States publications. But the condition of the publishing interests in Canada is very critical. And it is an important interest; the men employed in it are among the most highly skilled and highly paid workmen we have ,'n the country. But these men are being driven out of the country-the same applies

Customs Tariff
to literary and artistic ability manifested in other directions-by reason of the fact tnat there is no market in Canada for the services of a man who can do high-class work either in literature or in art. The best way to remedy that is to put it within the financial reach of some group of men to establish a real Canadian publication that can get a circulation of 100,000 or 200,000. Under present conditions that is impossible.


Mr. EVANS:: It has been my observation for the last thirty years that the advocates of protection have always protested against the importation of United States magazines. I do not believe they take this attitude because of the resulting competition with Canadian periodicals. I will point you back to certain revisions of the tariff, particularly in 1905 and 1906, when they protested most vigorously against the importation of United States magazines, not because of the reading matter which they contained, but because of the advertisements contained in thenj. I am not so sure that my hon. friends to my right have not the same idea in mind now that the protectionists had at that time. As a Canadian I dislike having to hear the suggestion which is brought up so frequently, that Canada is utterly 'helpless to do anything in competition with other nations. It is the competition with these advertisements that some of our people fear, more than the competition of the periodical itself. Now, there are many Canadian magazines and periodicals which are doing very well. We certainly want to cultivate the Canadian national spirit as much as we can, and I do not think it will tend to promote that spirit if we shut out United States magazines, and thus prevent the people of this country from being as well read as possible.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: So far as the exclusion of American magazines is concerned, I do not wish at the moment to discuss that point; I understand it is not relevant to the item we are considering. But representations have been made to me by magazine publishers in Canada, particularly by publishers of weekly newspapers, in the matter of securing a reduction of the duty on paper coming from the United States into Canada. I think they have a substantial argument to support their contention in that respect. Advertising houses which run advertisements in United States and Canadian publications place the Canadian publisher at a disadvantage: while there is no duty on the advertising coming
into Canada, there is a duty, and a pretty stiff one, on the paper coming into Canada that is necessary for these Canadian publications. Our Canadian paper mills did very well during the years of the war and are to-day in a prosperous condition; the fact that practically 85 per cent of their product is exported is, I think, a pretty fair evidence of their prosperity. I would urge upon the minister the making of some reduction in the duties on this particular class of paper and thus affording much needed relief to Canadian publishers. I see no reason why that should not be done, and I trust that the Minister of Finance will give the matter consideration.


William Charles Good: I have a friend in the printing business who tells me that he buys a great deal of paper from the other side, on which he pays a duty of 30 per cent, or whatever it may be. It may not be just the class of paper under consideration, but it seems to me that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crear) is certainly' worth considering-that we should cut down the duty on American paper. A very large protection is undoubtedly given to the Canadian manufacturer at present, and it would make it very much easier for all our publishers if that duty were reduced. I would submit to the minister that the duty were cut down from 35 to 25 per cent, we might get just as much revenue, possibly more than we are getting now under the very high duty of 35 per cent. I hope the Government will consider a reduction in the duty on this particular item.


Mr. NEILL:: I hope, that in that connection the Minister of Finance will remember that four of the six paper manufacturing mills in my district are idle today for lack of business.


William Stevens Fielding: I have no doubt a fair argument could be made for reduction of duty on several particular items, but I have to fall back on our attitude towards the United States. I think it is sound policy for the present, except in urgent cases, in the slang of the day, to " stand pat " on the tariff question until we see what our American friends are going to do. At all events, that is the ground we have taken with regard to the American tariff generally.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Paper milk bottle caps, printed or not: British Preferential tariff, 15 p.c.; Intermediate tariff, 25 p.c.; General tariff, 274 p.c.
Customs Tariff
Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the former tariff?


William Stevens Fielding: It was 221, 32 and 35. We have made a considerable reduction.


Mr. WALLACE:: To what extent are these milk bottle caps imported? What is the percentage as compared with the home manufactured article?


William Stevens Fielding: The figures are not classified in such a way that I can answer that question. The imports have not been very large because the rates have been very high. There will probably be some imports now. The effect of all these reductions will be to encourage some imports, I hope not at the expense of the home industry. With the general improvement of trade, I hope both will benefit.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister
really think that a reduction in the duty on milk bottle caps is going to increase the dairy business so that whatever reduction may be made in local purchases of the same article will be more than made up for by the increase in the dairy business? Surely he does not think, even though this reduction does result in a lower price for milk bottle caps, that that is going to be reflected in any increase in the dairying industry of Canada. The suggestion is ludicrous.


William Stevens Fielding: Anything that will
lighten the burdens on the dairying industry will encourage and help that industry. That is a fair proposition generally. My observation and experience are that a moderate tariff very often gives you as much revenue, or more, than a higher rate of duty. My experience under the Liberal administration was that such reductions did not diminish the general business of the country, but rather helped it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That opens up a pretty large field. What are these milk bottle caps worth to the dairyman? What is the percentage of cost?


William Stevens Fielding: I am afraid I could not give that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is infinitesimal.


William Stevens Fielding: I hope my hon. friend will tell the manufacturer it is infinitesimal.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is infinitesimal so far as any reduction to the public is concerned.


William Stevens Fielding: It works only one way, does it?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Boracic acid and borax in packages of not less than twenty-five pounds weight; hydro-fluosilicic acid; oxalic acid; tannic acid; ammonia, sulphate of; sal ammoniac and nitrate of ammonia ; cyanide of potassium; cyanide of sodium and cyanogen bromide; antimony salts, viz.:-tartar emetic, chlorine and lactate (an-timonine) ; arsenous oxide; oxide of cobalt; oxide of tin; bichloride of tin; tin crystals; oxide of copper; precipitate of copper, crude; sulphate of copper (blue vitriol) ; verdigris or subacetate of copper, dry; sulphate of iron (copperas) ; sulphate of zinc; chloride of zinc; sulphur and brimstone, crude or in roll or flour; cream of tartar, in crystals or argols; tartaric acid crystals, iodine, crude; bromine; phosphorus ; sulphide of arsenic; carbon bisulphide: British Preferential tariff, free; Intermediate tariff, free ; General tariff, free.
Henry Lumley Drayton: The whole of this item is unnecessary except that it adds three articles to the former free list, cyanide of sodium, cyanogen bromide-


William Stevens Fielding: These things were
limited to certain purposes, and the limiting words are stricken out.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That was not my understanding. I only want to get at the facts. If my hon. friend will look at the former tariff item No. 208, he will find that the only change being made is that formerly cyanide of sodium and cyanogen bromide were admitted free only for use in reducing metals in mining operations, and that these two articles were the only ones that were limited. I think that is the only change.


William Stevens Fielding: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Caustic soda in solution: British Preferential tariff, 15 p.c.; Intermediate tariff, 17^ p.e.; General tariff, 17i p.c.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the former tariff?


William Stevens Fielding: One-fifth of a cent, three-tenths of a cent, and three-tenths of a cent. This is a very material reduction.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
value?


William Stevens Fielding: The old duty works out at about 29 per cent. It is reduced now to 17J per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Customs Tariff
Paper refills for sputum cups; paper pocket sputum cups: British Preferential tariff, 12J p.c.; Intermediate tariff, 171 p.c.; General tariff, 20 p.c.
Mr. LEWIS:: If there is one item in this whole list that ought to be placed on the free list, it is this one. I do not wish to speak of the disease, and of the patients who use these articles, hut it is a well known fact that the health of the nation and the well-being of our people depend upon these patients being very careful in expectorating. The federal and provincial governments are conducting educational campaigns to teach those afflicted with this disease how to look after themselves, and to use these cups, but the moment these people endeavour to carry out their instructions, we penalize them by imposing a tariff on these cups. It should also he remembered that we are paying out sums of money every year for the destruction of herds of cattle that react to a certain test. In view of all that is being done to try to clean up this disease, and to get people to look after themselves in a sanitary way, it does seem to me a most illogical proposition that we should put this impediment in the way. The one disease that is carrying off more white people than any other to-day is tuberculosis, and it i3 those who are afflicted with this disease that use these cups. The large institutions, federal and provincial, that are looking after these patients have to buy large quantities of these cups, and to impose a tariff seems to me only taking money out of one pocket and putting it in another. I would urge the minister to place these cups, and I think the cups should be al-people have been educated to use these cups, and I think the cups should be allowed to come in free, so that we can help to eradicate this disease. Although I do not wish to propose an amendment I think it would be advisable for the minister to put this article on the free list.


William Stevens Fielding: It is difficult to resist my hon. friend's suggestion, but I would point out to him that we are making a very substantial reduction with which, I think, we might very well be content for the moment. There is a 15 per cent reduction under the general tariff and a 10 per cent reduction under the British preference. I think my hon. friend ought to accept that as an assurance that we are trying to deal with the case to which he alludes in a generous spirit.


Mr. MANION:: What I wish to say does not come under this particular item but applies to another, nevertheless I would like to mention a matter at this stage which I think will appeal to the minister. I had a case some months ago of a little boy, the son of a poor carpenter, who is a cripple; he has paralysis of the legs. The father was very anxious to take the best possible care of him and wished to get him one of these wheel chairs suitable for cripples, but found he had to import it from the United States because he could not get it in Canada. I took the matter up with the Customs Department and found there was a fairly heavy duty payable on such a chair. I believe that in cases like this it is only in the interests of common humanity that we should eliminate the duties on any such appliances. If the Finance Minister would take this matter up he will be doing a favour to those who are sadly in need of attention and it will be greatly to his credit. I would like the minister to look into the matter and see whether he cannot make a recommendation in the desired direction.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not recall the circumstance to which my hon. friend alludes although it is quite possible that it may have been brought to my attention.


Robert James Manion: It was not brought to my hon. friend's attention. The case occurred under the late government.


William Stevens Fielding: There is much in what my hon. friend has said which commends itself, I am sure, to the consideration of the committee. I will take the matter into consideration and see whether there may be some opportunity of dealing with it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-Gasoline .725 specific gravity and heavier but not heavier than .750 specific gravity at 60 degrees temperature, per gallon: British Preferential tariff, i cent; Intermediate tariff, $ cent; General tariff, 1 cer t.
William Stevens Fielding: We have made a slight change in this item with a view of reducing the duty on a class of gasoline used by the fishermen. The duty on this is now 2i cents but by the proposed amendment it will be reduced to 1 cent. I think it is all right as far as it goes, but my attention has been called by hon. members, chiefly from British Columbia,-and I refer particularly to my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill)-to the fact that the gasoline used by the fishermen on the Pacific coast is not exactly of the same
Customs Tariff

character as that which is used on the Atlantic coast. An effort has therefore been made, by changing the description of the item, to make it apply to the fishermen on both coasts which I hope the hon. members from British Columbia will find satisfactory. I therefore propose that the item shall read:
Gasoline .725 specific gravity and heavier, but not heavier than .770 specific gravity at 60 degrees temperature; oils, coal and kerosene, distilled, known as engine distillate" .725 specific gravity and heavier, hut not heavier than .770 specific gravity at 60 degrees temperature, per gallon : British Preferential tariff j cent; Intermediate tariff, f cent; General tariff, 1 cent.
The object is to meet the wishes of my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni and make the relief apply to the fishermen of British Columbia as well as the Atlantic fishermen.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Will the minister explain what the reduction amounts to as regards fishermen on the Atlantic coast?


William Stevens Fielding: A certain class of gasoline on which they would have had to pay 21 cents they now get at 1 cent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Has the minister found out, in connection with his investigation, that the Canadian consumer is very much better off in connection with this free gasoline-because gasoline, speaking generally, is free; motor gasoline is free, there is no tax on it at all. Therefore the Canadian consumer is very much better off by reason of it. But has there not been a greater spread in cost between this free gasoline in Canada and in the United States, than there is between the gasoline the hon. member has referred to?


William Stevens Fielding: I may say that we have to act on a general principle. Reductions of duties, whether large or small, ought to reach the consumer. They may be slow in reaching him. I confess that if you put an additional tax on anything to-day it reaches the consumer to-morrow morning, when the shop keeper discovers the increase of taxation he adds the duty to his price; but when you reduce the duty on anything I believe it is slow in reaching the consumer, although I think it does reach him in the end.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is my hon. friend quite fair in that comment?


William Stevens Fielding: I think so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think if my hon. friend consults his experts he will find that we have had free gasoline for motor purposes for years, and that the spread in price to-day between the Canadian price and the American price is greater than it was years ago.


Alan Webster Neill: I wish to express gratitude on the part of the fishermen of the Pacific coast for this change made by the Minister of Finance on representations made to him by the member for Skeena (Mr. Stork) and myself. It is a very substantial and a very important one; it means a 60 per cent reduction in the duties. As the minister outlined in his budget the reduction was intended to apply to the fishermen of both coasts, but owing to the fact that distillate is largely used

I suppose to the extent of 90 per cent-on fishing boats on the Pacific coast while it does not appear to be used on the Atlantic coast at all, we did not get the benefit that was intended. However, the amendment which he has brought in to-day now applies to us in the West, and I think I can assure the Finance Minister that this reduction will immediately benefit the consuming fishermen on the Pacific coast, and this distillate can be brought over from the American side in competition with the local product. The reduction is one very much to our benefit, and I compliment the Finance Minister for having given this matter consideration in the midst of his numerous and onerous duties. It shows his capacity for hard work and his devotion to duty when he can turn aside and, at the suggestion of the hon. member for Skeena and myself, listen to our representations and adjust a matter of this kind. It is certainly a high tribute to his sense of fairness and his mastery of detail that he will pay attention to matters of this kind advanced by two members- perhaps I may be allowed to say two insignificant members-coming from remote districts.


Arthur Meighen: Unless there are any more compliments to be paid in respect of this fraction of a cent duty on gasoline, I may ask the minister if he would explain why it is that a duty is maintained on this gasoline at all when gasoline for motor purposes has been free for so many years? I ask him if he believes that the removal of the duty on gasoline, as it has been removed for many years, has resulted, as he says, in a lowering of the cost, in face of the fact that the spread between the

Customs Tariff
price of the Canadian free gasoline and the American free gasoline is greater than the spread between the American dutiable gasoline and the Canadian dutiable gasoline?	In view of that fact, if the
Finance Minister still thinks that this means a reduction in the cost, why does he maintain this duty at all, while the great body of the gasoline imported and used on the prairies, used in motors, has been free for many years?


William Stevens Fielding: Gasoline of a certain quality and consistency has been free, but all is not free. The fishermen use a quality of gasoline which will be reached by this concession-which, while it may not be much of a concession is, at all events, in the right direction. I am afraid I shall have to lay down the general principle that a reduction of duty, whether large or small, is desirable and will reach the consumer in the end. I think my hon. friend will admit that is a sound proposition.


Arthur Meighen: Experience rather
teaches the contrary. I would like to have some explanation from the minister-if not from the minister, perhaps from the hon. gentlemen to my left who have been finding fault with the difference between Canadian gasoline prices and American gasoline prices as an argument against protection, oblivious to the fact that there was no protection on gasoline

why the Canadian gasoline price under free trade conditions is so much higher than the American price.


Alan Webster Neill: I wish to point out that the ordinary motor car gasoline is liable to a duty. It is free when not heavier than .725 but that is a very high class of gasoline used almost entirely by aeroplanes, and the ordinary person does not travel by aeroplane as a rule; he travels in a Ford car when he can afford it, and the gas he uses in that car is ordinary commercial gaso-oline of .745 specific gravity, which, under section 271 of the tariff is liable to a duty. It has been paying 21 cents per gallon, and now it is reduced to 1 cent. The gasoline, nominally sold by the gallon is for practical purposes, on account of its expansion or contraction at different temperatures, really sold or measured by the weight, and the weight for commercial gasoline,

I may say I am in the business- is -745. That is at a temperature of 60 degrees. If a man wants 40 gallons of gasoline, he gets forty times -745. The distilate is -765, coal oil -800, while free gasoline is under -725, and that is entirely used for aeroplanes or some very
high class of machine. I suppose it would also be used in lamps. But the ordinary gasoline is -745.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. member
would look up the imports of free gasoline, and explain how that comes to be all used in aeroplanes in Canada, he might make good his case.
Item as amended agreed to.
Customs tariff-Glass demijohns or carboys, bottles n.o.ip., decanters, flasks, phials, glass jars and glass balls, lamp chimneys, glass shades or globes; cut, pressed, moulded or crystal glass table-ware, decorated or not: blown glass tableware and other cut glassware: British Preferential tariff 20 per cent; Intermediate tariff 30 per cent; General tariff 321 per cent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: They are the same as formerly.


William Stevens Fielding: They are the same,
excepting the words "n.o.p."


William Charles Good: Has there been any reduction in the duty on these items?


William Stevens Fielding: No reduction.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-Glass milk bottles; British Preferential tariff, 15 per cent, Intermediate tariff, 25 per cent; General tariff, 27J per cent.
Arthur John Lewis: What is the quantity of
glass bottles manufactured in Canada? Have we any manufacturers of glass milk bottles in Canada?


William Stevens Fielding: I could not get the
quantities. They are very largely manufactured in Canada. It is quite a large industry, I know that from the reports made on the subject.


William Charles Good: What reduction has been
made in this particular item?


William Stevens Fielding: The figures before
were 20, 30 and 321; they are now 15, 25 and 271.


Arthur Meighen: Could the hon. minister tell us where the importations come from?


William Stevens Fielding: Chiefly from the
United States.


Arthur Meighen: They would pay 271
still.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes. In that case there was a 5 per cent reduction, from 321 per cent to 271 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs Tariff
[Stage Direction]
Customs tariff-Dairy tin hollow-ware, including cans for fresh milk or fresh cream; kitchen tin hollow-ware not painted, decorated or japanned: British Preferential tariff, 12J per cent; Intermediate tariff, 171 per cent; General tariff, 20 per cent.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What 'reduction is there here?


William Stevens Fielding: The present rates are
15, 221 and 251. The proposed rates are 121, 171 and 20.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-Wrought or seamless iron or steel tuhing, plain or galvanized, threaded and coupled or not, ten inches or less in diameter, n.o.p.: British Preferential tariff 15 per cent; Intermediate tariff 27J per cent; General tariff, 30 per cent.
William Stevens Fielding: The present rates are 20, 30 and 35 per cent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does that
enter largely into the cost of agricultural implements?


William Stevens Fielding: Largely, I am informed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And it is the same class of material to which the drawback is extended, is it not?


William Stevens Fielding: It is used largely by plumbers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-Agate, granite, or enamelled iron or steel ware: British Preferential tariff, 20 per cent; Intermediate tariff 27J per cent; General tariff, 35 per cent.
William Stevens Fielding: The present rates are 221, 321 and 35 per cent.


William Charles Good: These are articles that are in very common use, and it seems to me that we have done nothing but make Canadian millionaires in this line in recent years. We ought to have very much more sweeping reductions in the duty, particularly on American goods. .


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-Mowing machines, harvesters, self-binding or without binders, binding attachments, reapers, and complete parts thereof, not including shafting or malleable iron castings: British Preferential tariff, 7£ per cent; Intermediate tariff, 10 per cent; General tariff 10 per cent.
William Stevens Fielding: The present rates are 121, 121 and 121 per cent.


Arthur Meighen: You would be quite safe in making the British Preferential nothing at all.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, they will not come from Great Britain; they come from the United States.


John Evans: This relates to some of the chief implements used in agricultural production. The duty here, in the highest column is only 10 per cent, which does not look high, but if any one thinks he can import agricultural machinery on a 10 per cent duty, I would like him to try it. We do not object as much to this tariff schedule as to the fringes with which it is enclosed. It is our experience that we cannot import machinery on the invoice price at all. The anti-dumping duty is added to this, even, when bought from the foreign manufacturer in the usual way. The appraisers of the Customs Department seem to put whatever price they see fit on implements brought in, and it is our experience that, on some implements which have been imported during the last year by one of our co-operative companies, we have had to pay as high as 51 per cent, and, in one case, indeed, as high as 78 per cent. I do not see why this discrimination should exist, or why we cannot go to the United States, if we want to, find an independent manufacturer there, buy implements and import them at the schedule price, without coming under the anti-dumping duty. I should like to know from the minister if we cannot have this altered?


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend's remark would not apply to this particular item, but to things generally. The antidumping duty is, possibly, not as generally understood as it should be. Some people get the notion that, if goods are sold cheaply, it must be because of dumping, but that is not so. The dumping duty is a duty levied when there is a difference between the home price and the price at which goods are invoiced to Canada. If the price of these goods to Canada is lower than the price at which they are sold in the home market, that is dumping, and the duty of the customs is to value them according to the home market price. On the other hand, if the goods are sold to Canada at the exact price at which they are sold in the United States, that is not dumping, and there should be no additional duty.


John Evans: One hon. member from British Columbia said the anti-dumping duty had its teeth pulled. It is our experience that the teeth that are left in it

Customs Tariff
can take a pretty good hold. It was our experience here, only three years ago, that we bought implements in the usual way, and had the manufacturers' invoice price presented for customs appraisal, and we failed to bring them in on that, simply because, under the combine regulations in this country, we were not allowed to he registered as wholesalers or jobbers. I think it is an imposition, and puts the users of this machinery practically in bondage to the home manufacturer.


Arthur Meighen: I have been quite impressed by what the hon. member has said, but I should like him to adduce the facts. I think he must be under a misapprehension, and I am sure the minister thinks the same. It would be very unlikely that the old dumping clause or any dumping clause could apply to such an article as this, and very unlikely that the American manufacturer would invoice such articles at a price lower than he was selling them at.


John Evans: He did not.


Arthur Meighen: If he did not, then the old dumping clause could not possibly be applied, and I should like to have the facts adduced to show that what has been reported to the hon. gentleman is necessarily and, in fact, correct. Without for a moment questioning the bona fides of the hon. gentleman-and he is one of the last whose bona fides I would question-he must be misinformed as regards the incorporation. The department at Ottawa could not apply the dumping clause or any extra duty in respect of an invoice by denying the right of incorporation or the right to regard the institution to which he refers as a wholesale house or a jobber. Without going into the facts or knowing anything about the case at all, I venture to say that an investigation will show that the hon. member is wrong.


John Evans: The importation was made by the United Grain Growers, Limited, and recently we imported at Regina a carload of ploughs, the total selling price of which to us was $1,692.38 plus $9.24 value of repair parts, making a grand total of $1,701.62. On this we were required to pay duty on a value of $2,025, which duty amounted to $556.88, and, in addition, a dumping duty of $303.75, or a total duty of $860.63, which works out at over 51 per cent ad valorem on the purchase price, whereas the regular tariff rate is 27i

per cent. The customs entry of this car at Regina was dated August, 19, 1916, and is numbered 4658.


Arthur Meighen: What is the hon. gentleman reading from?


John Evans: The annual report of the Grain Growers' Grain Company.


Arthur Meighen: What year?


John Evans: 1917.


Arthur Meighen: I do not like to reflect on the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) ; but the duty on ploughs in 1917 was either 20 per cent or 171 per cent I am not sure which. It certainly was not 271 per cent. It is now or was prior to this tariff, 171 per cent, and it has been 171 per cent for some years. In 1917, it might have been 20 per cent; it certainly was not any higher.


John Evans: This says 271 per cent.


Arthur Meighen: I venture to say that the rest of the facts are about on a par with that.


John Evans: That does not alter the fact that we were brought under the antidumping clause, because we were not registered as wholesalers or jobbers. So, in that case, we could not import on the invoice price as every dealer in this country can.


Arthur Meighen: Registered where as wholesalers or jobbers? Where is the registration?


John Evans: According to the customs regulations.


Arthur Meighen: There is no such regulation.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I cannot at the moment recall the particular instances to which my hon. friend from Saskatoon (Mr. Evans) has alluded. I know we did have, for practically a whole year, very serious trouble with the customs officials as regards the importation of those implements from the United States. The dumping clause was applied in many cases where it should not have been applied. After a good deal of effort and trouble we prepared a case; we came down to Ottawa, and we submitted it to the customs officials. They admitted that they were wrong and we got the rebate in the duty.


Arthur Meighen: That might easily occur. That shows that everything was made all right.


John Evans: I should like to tell the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) that that was another item altogether, prior to this.


Mr. ROBB:: May I point out to my hon. friend that, after the injustices which he now complains of had taken place, western Canada voted confidence in the government that was administering that act, and elected, as one of the members of that government, the hon. member for Marquette?


Mr. COOTE:: Does the hon. member think the result of the election in 1917 was due to the tariff policy that government had in force?


Mr. JOHNSTON (Last Mountain) :: I should like to ask the minister why shafting and malleable castings are not included. They are exempted under item 445.


William Stevens Fielding: The item is the same. There is no change in that respect except in the rate.


John Frederick Johnston: I submit that the minister should not make a part greater than the whole, and shafting ar.d malleable iron castings for all these machines should come in under the same rate of duty as the machine.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-Cultivators, harrows, horse-rakes, seed-drills, manure spreaders and weeders and complete parts theieof: British Preferential tariff, 10 per cent; Intermediate tariff, 12J per cent; General tariff, 12J per cent.
William Stevens Fielding: The former rates were 10, 15 and 15.


John Frederick Johnston: I
found it necessary to vote against my hon. friend's budget, and I had certain reasons for doing so. This is one of them. I am convinced that there is no good reason why the duty on cultivators, harrows and so on should be higher than on mowing machines, binders, etc., under item 445. These machines are constructed of practically the same kind of material. Why there should be a difference in the import duty, I cannot understand. I am reminded of the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb), when he spoke on the budget debate. He said that when we came

to deal with this matter in committee the Government would listen to advice-I do not think he said it would be taken, but at least it would be listened to.


James Alexander Robb: Listened to.


William Stevens Fielding: Certainly.


John Frederick Johnston: My advice to the minister is to reduce the rate of duty on item 446 to the same as prevails under item 445.


William Stevens Fielding: Will not my hon. friend accept the homely doctrine that a half loaf is better than no bread?


John Frederick Johnston: I
have been brought up on that principle, but I do not think we have quite the half loaf here. I am just looking for that.


Arthur Meighen: As respects the matter referred to by the hon. member for Saskatoon, which refers just as much to this item as to any other, although the facts as disclosed by him in reading from the annual report of the Grain Growers' Grain Company have been shown in one very important particular to be manifestly wrong, nevertheless those facts have gone out to the country, have been spread broadcast through the West and are, in part, accountable, no doubt, for many misapprehensions that exist in that part of the country on this question. We are going through these items now. The publication made by the hon. member will simply add to the advertising that this matter has received. I think the minister, before these items are carried, should, at a convenient time, get the facts from his department or from the Department of Customs with regard to the case of the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Evans), a full explanation of what actually happened and how it happened, and let this committee know what the facts really are. I do not think it is at all fair that what has been reported should go out; it has gone out already in the report of the company and, in one instance, at least, it is clearly wrong, contrary to the fact. I venture to say that the rest is also contrary to the fact in the main, and1 the minister owes it to the committee and the country to see that the true facts are adduced to the committee and spread upon the pages of Hansard.


William Stevens Fielding: At some stage of the proceedings, before we have finished with these items, I will, as suggested by the right hon. member, get a memorandum from the department on the subject.

Customs Tariff


Mr. JELLIFF:: I should like to refer to one article that affects us very seriously in southern Alberta, and that is rotary rod weeders which, I imagine, would come under this item. The type of weeder we are using is not manufactured in this country at all. It is a very valuable tool, because with it we can clean up the land by going once or twice over the surface, whereas by the use of the ordinary cultivators we are sometimes obliged to keep going over the land all through the summer season. The price of one of these rotary rod weeders, as quoted to us at Spring Coulee station near my own farm, is $12S, and any practical machinist or agricultural implement man in Canada will agree, I think, that the cost of producing that machine should not exceed $30 or $35. Inasmuch as this particular type of weeder is not manufactured here and is so essential to the maintenance of a clean and decent condition of the land in that part of the country, it seems to me that the duty should be taken off. This machine is absolutely needed in that part of Canada; and if I may call the attention of the minister to the fact, I would point out that one of the provisions of the Liberal platform of 1919 was the abolition of the duty in just such a case as this. That is also in accord with our own platform, and is absolutely necessary in the interests of the farming community in whose behalf I speak. I trust that the matter will receive the favourable consideration of the minister.


William Stevens Fielding: I should not care to agree at once to act on my hon. friend's suggestion and put this article on the free list. However, the suggestion may be useful at some other date, and I hope the hon. member will not press it now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-Ploughs and complete parts thereof: British preferential tariff 10 per cent; Intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; General tariff, 15 per cent.
William Stevens Fielding: The present rates are 125 per cent, 17J per cent, 17J per cent.


John Frederick Johnston: The minister did not take my suggestion on the other item.


William Stevens Fielding: Oh, yes, I took it.


John Frederick Johnston: You took it, but you did not act on it. Well, I am going to give the minister an opportunity to act on another suggestion, and I hope he will do so without a formal motion.
If he does not see his way clear to reducing the duties on ploughs and parts thereof I shall have to move that those duties be reduced to a parity with the duties under item 445. The plough is the first tool that any one undertaking the cultivation of the land must have, and we should not place these obstacles in the way of people who have backbone enough to tackle this work under existing conditions. Why the duties should be as high as they are, on these implements, is a mystery to me, and I hope the minister will himself move to have the import duties thereon reduced.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend ought
not to expect too much all at once. He had better leave something for the future.


John Frederick Johnston: I
acted on that principle in connection with previous items, but in this case I shall move, seconded by the member for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox), that under item 446b the British preferential tariff be reduced to 71 per cent, the intermediate tariff to 10 per cent, and the general tariff to 10 per cent.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not prepared to
accept the amendment. The matter might stand until another sitting, and be considered in the meantime. I do not think the hon. member should press his amendment, but if he does the item can stand for the present.


John Frederick Johnston: Let it stand.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is quite satisfactory, but before we leave this item I might give the committee a little information I have gathered from the trade figures in regard to this particular article. I find that the total exports from Canada of ploughs manufactured in this country, tc all countries, for the year ending March 31st, 1922, was $1,465,000. In the preceding year, when trade throughout the world was much better than it is at present, it amounted to $3,628,000. These duties are levied mainly against ploughs coming in from the United States. Now, we exported to the United Kingdom in 1922 ploughs to the value of $74,000, and in the previous year $441,000;
5 p.m. while to the United States in the same year we exported $250,000 worth and in 1921 almost $1,200,000. I give these facts to show, in the first place, that our Canadian plough manufacturers are shipping ploughs to the United States

Customs Tariff

and selling them there in competition with American manufacturers. If that is true -and the figures are taken from the trade statistics-is it unreasonable to ask that the duties on ploughs be reduced to the same level as those on mowers and binders? There is another aspect of the question that should not be overlooked by the committee The raw materials, such as iron and steel, entering Canada for the manufacture of ploughs, as indeed for all agricultural implements, come in under a duty; but when the manufactured article is exported the Canadian manufacturer gets a drawback on the duty. So that what we are really doing is this:	The Canadian plough manufacturer imports a certain amount of raw material, iron and steel, for the manufacture of ploughs in Canada. He manufactures two carloads of ploughs, one of which he ships to the farmer in western Canada and the other to the United States. The cost to the western farmer is increased by the duty that the manufacturer has paid on the raw material. But on the carload of ploughs shipped to Dakota or Minnesota the manufacturer, receiving a rebate on the duty which he paid on the raw material that entered into the manufacture of them, is actually able, if the freight rates are equal, to sell those ploughs cheaper to the American farmer than he does to the Canadian agriculturist. No arguments of the most ardent protectionists can be advanced to justify that condition of affairs. This implement is very necessary in the development of agriculture, and if it is true that the Canadian manufacturers have been protected to the point where they are selling ploughs in the United States in competition with American manufacturers, is the request of my hon. friend from Last Mountain (Mr. Johnston) an unreasonable one, that the duties be further reduced on ploughs to the same level as the duties on mowers and binders?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Can my hon. friend tell the House the amount of duties represented in the raw materials he has referred to?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not know.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am quite sure you do not.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: They do not come in free, I know that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am asking as to the amount represented in each in-

stance. I gave some illustrations to the committee.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend, the exMinister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), will admit that, whatever the amount of duty, the Canadian manufacturer gets a drawback when he ships his implements to the United States, and consequently can sell them there so much cheaper than he can to the western farmer in Canada.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. member is showing that he has not familiarized himself with the state of the tariff in so far as his own business is concerned, or else he has been reading too many issues of his paper similar to the article he has referred to this afternoon. Does my hon. friend know that in connection with certain agricultural implements that are important to the western farmer there is a drawback of 99 per cent in respect to those articles of steel and iron entering into their manufacture? Does he know that in the case of articles manufactured for the home market there are drawbacks of 30 to 40 per cent?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Does that apply to raw material 'entering into the manufacture of ploughs?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I will turn up the details.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If my hon. friend turns up the details he will find that 99 per cent does not apply in that case.
Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil) Has my hon. friend the comparative figures of exports and sales in the home market?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, I have not that information. Of course, the sales in Canada would be much greater than foreign sales, particularly in the last few years. But the plough manufacturers of Canada have been doing a pretty fair export business for a number of years. I gave the figures for 1922 and 1921. The total exports in 1920 were almost $2,500,000; the year before they amounted to more than $2,400,000.


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil) :: I just
wanted to get the proportion.


Mr. GUTHRIE :: How much went to the United States?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Last year ploughs were exported to the United States to the value of $253,000. The year before the amount was $1,199,000, and the year before, $670,000.

Customs Tariff


Mr. HALBERT:: Can the minister tell us whether plough-points, soil-plates, land-sides-the different parts of the plough- come in free if not punched or polished?


William Stevens Fielding: I understand they do.


Robert Henry Halbert: Then the manufacturer of ploughs can get his plough-points, soil-plates and land-sides, can polish and put holes in them, set the plough up, and pay no duty on the finished article.


Arthur Meighen: If there is one item in the whole tariff schedule to which the doctrine of the Minister of Finance would apply, it is this one-as you lower the duty the greater will be the importation. Does the minister admit that?


William Stevens Fielding: Not necessarily.


Arthur Meighen: If there is one item in the whole schedule to which it should apply, it is this one. We manufacture a large number of the ploughs that we use; we import a considerable number. If the minister is proposing this as revenue tariff- and he has disallowed protection with disdain; he has even made a left-hand slap at his Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) to do it-but if he is a revenue tariff man, let him come forward and apply the principle here, because beyond all question the reduction of duty would mean more importations and probably more revenue.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: And lower prices to consumers.


Arthur Meighen: I would not say that; I never did argue that. The minister may argue that.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall item 446b and the proposed amendment thereto stand?


Arthur Meighen: Am I to get no answer from the minister, and no help from hon. gentlemen to my left?


Robert Henry Halbert: Would my right hon. friend himself support that?


Arthur Meighen: I certainly would not. I never preached this revenue tariff in any sense, but my hon. friends to my left did,-free trade nonsense and all the rest of it. But the minister comes forward and says he is against protection; that he does not believe in it; he is for a revenue tariff. Now, he knows that reduction of duty here means more importations and therefore more revenue. Will he tell the committee why he does not consent to follow that course?
200J


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Well, that is a fine admission, anyway.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Consistency, thou art a jewel.


George Gibson Coote: We have been preaching increased production in order to get rid of our railway deficits, but at the same time we are keeping up the duty on ploughs. You cannot increase production if you decrease the number of ploughs. I think it would be quite in order to cut down the duty on ploughs; it might increase production, furnish more traffic for our railways, reduce the railway deficits and lessen our expenditure under the budget.


Mr. LUCAS:: Will the minister explain why the rate of duty on ploughs is different from the rate applied to cultivators? I am new in this House, and I have not been able to understand that.


William Stevens Fielding: There has been a difference in the past. Our object was to make a reduction in each case where we thought it might fairly be done. We started from the point of view of the present duty, and asked ourselves to what extent we might make reductions.
Item stands.
Customs tariff-Gas or gasoline traction engines for farm purposes, valued at not more than fourteen hundred dollars each, and parts thereof for repairs; traction attachments designed and imported to be combined with automobiles in Canada for use as traction engines for farm purposes and parts thereof for repairs: British Preferential tariff, free; Intermediate tariff, free ; General tariff, free.


William Stevens Fielding: There is no change in this item. The provision has already been sanctioned by Order in Council; this is simply to confirm it in the statute.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I suggest that gasoline tractors ought to be included in this item as well. They are cheaper and more efficient. They have practically the same engine, but the combustion chamber is a little differently constructed. It is the poor man's engine tractor.


William Stevens Fielding: It may be that the tractors to which my hon. friend refers are now recognized as coming under this item. If at a later stage I find that is not the case, I will have the matter reconsidered.


Arthur John Lewis: If a tractor costs $1,400, it comes in free; if it exceeds that amount, the tariff is applied. In the case of automobiles the duty is 5 per cent up to a value of $1,200, and 10 per cent on any amount
Customs Tariff

in excess of $1,200. It seems to me that in the case of a tractor costing, say, $2,000, the tax should be applied only upon a valuation in excess of the $1,400.


William Stevens Fielding: That is a new thought, which we may take into consideration. I would not like to assent to it at once.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I commend the Minister of Finance for making this change in the tariff permanent. Hitherto it has been done by Order in Council. My hon. friend has changed that. At any rate these particular engines now come in free of duty. I could wish that I might have the support of my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition in furthering steps in this direction. We were in agreement before when this change was made at a very critical time in this country's history, and I trust that on reflection during the recess he will see the advisability of permitting free importation of other agricultural implements, and give us his support when he comes back next year.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. gentleman sees any great glory in maintaining the present state of facts by changing the basis from a perfectly valid Order in Council to a perfectly valid statute, I am content that he utilize that for the advantage of the Government with which he is so friendly. I have no objection at all. I cannot help, indeed, but be amused at the contrast between the determined campaign and the very violent threats against the tariff on the part of my hon. friends to my left through the election, and the devotion that their language displayed to their own programme-and the gentle pillow fights we now see between hon. gentlemen to my left and the Government. I am sure the West and indeed the whole country, will be impressed by that contrast. If the hon. gentleman was not satisfied with the security of these exemptions on the basis of what I call a perfectly valid Order in Council, I wonder why he did not suggest a better basis himself? He was in the government at that time, and we might just as well have done this then if he thought it would have been an improvement, but he thought it was quite right then, and I do not see why he sees such a very great advantage in the change now.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I really think there is a very considerable advantage in the
change. I admit that my 'non. friend may

be suffering from a sort of political melancholy at the moment, but I trust that on reflection he will see the wisdom of the suggestion I offered a little while ago and will come to our assistance in attacking whatever forces of protection there may be among hon. gentlemen opposite.


Arthur Meighen: Assistance presupposes an initiative, and I have not yet seen an initiative for me to assist.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: We will give it to you.


Ernest Lapointe: It is very fortunate that my hon. friend has at last found out that his opponents are not all nation-wreckers, as he described them during the election.


Arthur Meighen: Very often people are much more wreckers when they are on the stump than when they are in Parliament and enjoy the sweets of a seat in the House and of office in the Government.


Mr. STEEDSMAN:: While we appreciate to the full the purpose of the minister in making this change permanent, I would like to point out that four-fifths of the work that is done by these engines coming in free is hauling ploughs and cultivators. I want again to draw the attention of the House to the inconsistency of charging a duty of 15 per cent on ploughs, when they are pulled by tractors that come in free, and I would like the minister to bear that in mind when he further considers Item No. 446b.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs Tariff-Wind stackers, and threshing machine separators, including baggers, weighers and self-feeders therefor, and complete parts thereof: British Preferential tariff, 10 iper cent; Intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; General tariff, 15 per cent.
Mr. JOHNSON (Moosejaw) :: This is an item on which I wish to register a protest. Much has been said regarding ploughs and other implements. I do not think there is an implement entering into farming operations on which a reduction of duty would be more justifiable than on this. It is very true that a plough is the first implement that enters into farming operations, but after a man has grown his crop and seen it ripen, he has to harvest it, and if he cannot get threshing facilities a great percentage of his crop is lost. That is an actual fact, and hon. members sitting around me will be able to cite cases of that sort. A threshing machine runs into a considerable amount of money, and the duty on the machine is very often the deciding

Customs Tariff
factor whether a man will purchase or not. The manufacturers do not need this protection, as is evidenced by the export figures to the United States and other countries. In 1921 our manufacturers exported threshing machines to the United States to the value of $904,648, and in 1922, $131,701. They exported to all other countries, in 1921, threshing machines to the value of $818,052, and in 1922, $688,609. That is quite a substantial business, and it proves that they do not require this protection. On the other hand, the elimination of this duty might mean, and frequently would mean, the salvation of a man's entire crop. Last year hundreds of acres of crop were destroyed through the delay in threshing operations. I would like the Minister of Finance to reconsider this item and see if he cannot reduce it to the duty provided in Item No. 445. Perhaps the item could stand over in the meantime.


William Stevens Fielding: Let it stand with the plough item, if my hon. friend wishes it.


George Gibson Coote: The Minister of Finance is going to think over the question of making some change in the tariff on threshing machines. We heard a lot yesterday about the labour problem of the farmer. Most of the threshing machines we have in the West now are large outfits requiring a large number of men to run them. The solution of the farmer's problem so far as threshing is concerned, is in a small threshing outfit. A lot of the farmers have small tractors, and they would like to be able to get these small threshing machines to operate in connection with the small tractor. Then they would be able to do their own threshing without very much hired help. It would make it very much easier for them to get these threshing machines if this duty were reduced. At one time I had some little experience in keeping books for a jobber who handled threshing outfits, and I know that the freight and duty must always be paid in cash by the purchaser of the machine. He can get credit for the balance, but the freight and duty must be paid, and it is this initial payment that very often prevents a man from getting a threshing outfit. It 'would help very materially if this duty were reduced to the same level as the duty on mowing machines and binders. I am making this plea because I believe it would be a very material help to many of our farmers and help them to solve their threshing problems, which is one of the biggest problems on their hands to-day.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince, P. E. I.):: Regarding the question of threshing machines, I am not a high protectionist by any means, but speaking from an actual knowledge of the manufacturing concern in my own county I wish to make certain representations. The concern in question is the only one in the county shipping out of the province, and the only one in my town, and it manufactures threshing machines and ships them to western Canada. Now I know of my own knowledge that this concern is just Carrying on and simply marking time; it is not able to pay a reasonable dividend to its shareholders. However, it is putting out an excellent machine which has been shipped to western Canada and, I believe, is well received by the people of that country. It is a small machine that farmers can buy and operate, but the great difficulty lies in the present freight rates which make the cost of the machine excessive, it is claimed, to the people of the West. While I have every sympathy with the westerners in their desire for a reduction in the duty on this item, I know from actual experience that this firm has not been able to pay large dividends to its stock holders, although it is putting out an excellent machine and trying to establish a connection with western Canada.


Mr. SPENCER:: What make of machine is it?


William Findlay Maclean: It is put out by the Hall Manufacturing Company, of Summerside, P.E.I., and I would advise my hon. friends to get in touch with them.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend has considerable sympathy with the principle Of protection as applied to that industry.


William Findlay Maclean: I certainly have-a reasonable protection.


Arthur Meighen: While I am on my feet let me say that I owe a correction to the hon. member for ^Saskatoon (Mr. Evans). I was under the impression that the duty on ploughs was as I stated^-20 per cent. The duty was 20 per cent, but was subsequently reduced to 171 per cent. But the war tax of 71 per cent was on in 1917, so the total amounted to 271 per cent. The war tax and 21 per cent duty was taken off in June, 1919, leaving the rate 171 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs Tariff
[Stage Direction]
Customs tariff-Fruit or vegetable grading machines, incubators tor hatching eggs, brooders for rearing young fowl, pruning hooks, pruning shears, hay loaders, potato-diggers, fodder or feed cutters, grain crushers, fanning mills, hay tedders, farm or field rollers, post hole diggers, snaths, and other agricultural implements, n.o.p., and complete parts of articles specified in this tariff item: British Preferential tariff, 10 per cent; Intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; General tariff, 15 per cent.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I see here three
articles that are used in haying, that is hay-tedders, hay-loaders and snaths- which latter is a part of the scythe that we operate by hand. I can hardly understand why these should carry a higher duty than the mower which cuts the hay. We have the hay-tedder and the hay-loader, but we do not use as many snaths as we formerly did. There is one article in the item that I want particularly to call the attention of the minister to. We on this side helped the Minister of Agriculture yesterday morning to get through the Committee on Agriculture a bill for the grading of vegetables. Now the new Grading Act will make it compulsory that farmers shall buy grading machinery. I think I am correct when I say that these grading machines are not made in Canada, but we have a number of them in New Brunswick at the present time; down there we are just a little ahead of the Minister of Agriculture's bill. We have been grading potatoes for some years in New Brunswick and we are very pleased to see this legislation providing for grading, and pleased to have it made compulsory. I would sincerely invite the assistance of the Minister of Agriculture in order that we may get those graders in free because when the new law passes it will be compulsory to have them. Under the new law, introduced by the Minister of Agriculture, we must grade our potatoes and we must have these machines in order to do so. They are not manufactured in Canada-I think I am correct in saying that-and therefore no hardship to any manufacturing firm in this country would be involved. I would ask that grading machines especially be put on the free list owing to the fact that by legislation this Parliament will compel us to use such machines.


William Stevens Fielding: There is a reduction of 5 per cent provided for here which is a substantial reduction; and I may mention incidentally, that while it is well to talk about the manufacturer, it is not a bad thing to think a little about the revenue.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The minister will
surely reduce this duty to the same amount as that on mowing machines and reapers?


William Stevens Fielding: There is a reduction of 5 per cent here, which is substantial. Mowing machines pay 12i per cent.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The duty was put
too high in the first place, that was the trouble.


Arthur Meighen: Are these machines
made in Prince Edward Island, may I ask my hon. friend from Prince county?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, I think we can supply some of these machines.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-Milking mach.n&s, milking machine attachments, centrifugal machines for testing butter fat, milk or cream, and complete parts of articles specified in this item: British Preferential tariff, 10 per cent; Intermediate tariff, 15 per cent; Genera! tariff, 15 per cent.
Robert Henry Halbert: Why is there a tax on milking machines when cream separators have no protection?


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend must not expect perfection in this tariff.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-'Street or road rollers and complete .parts thereof:	British Preferential
tariff. 12£ per cent; Intermediate tariff, 20 per cent; General tariff, 20 per cent.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Is there any change there at all?


William Stevens Fielding: No change in the
rate. It is for convenience in classification.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-Machinery for sawing lumber, up -to but not including the point of planing, and complete parts thereof, not to include motive power: British Preferential tariff 15 per cent; Intermediate tariff, 22J per cent; General tariff, 25 per cent.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is there any reduction
here? -


William Stevens Fielding: The rates at present are 15, 25 and 27J per cent. We are making them 15, 22i and 25 per cent. There is a small reduction.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Was not this one of the items that should be put on the free list according to the Liberal platform?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not remember.

Customs Tariff


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It is a long way from being free. I have the Liberal platform here if the minister would like to look at
it?


William Stevens Fielding: I am not interested in that.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, that the minister says he is not interested in the Liberal platform, I was in hopes that he was. I think the duty on sawmill machinery should be reduced. Surely 15 per cent, 221 per cent, and 25 per cent are high duties. Such rates are a long way from being free. I am still not a very old man but I am afraid that at the rate at which we are going, I shall not live to see this machinery put on the free list, where the Liberal platform proposes to put it.


Mr. GRAHAM:: This lumber is not
lumber for the platform.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: A political platform
should not be made out of lumber but out of good principles.


Arthur Meighen: This one appears to be made out of blotting paper.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-Adzes, cleavers, hatchets, metal wedges, sledges, hammers, crowbars, cant-dogs and track tools, picks, mattocks, and eyes or poles for the same; too s of all kinds, n.o.p.; British Preferential tariff, 15 per cent; Intermediate tariff, 27J per cent; General tariff, 30 per cent.
William Charles Good: What are the present
rates?


William Stevens Fielding: The present rates are 20, 27 and 30 per cent. We are proposing 15, 271 and 30 per cent. There is no change in the general rate but 5 per cent oif the British preference.


William Charles Good: Will the minister not consider a further reduction in these duties? These are tools in general use and I think it would be highly advisable to cut at least 21 per cent from the intermediate and general tariffs.


William Stevens Fielding: My American argument is the answer to that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister,
perhaps, can give figures as to the amount of the importations of these articles.


William Stevens Fielding: There is no separate classification. It is a class of pump used for certain mines which hitherto has not been classified.
^ Sin HENRY DRAYTON: Has the minister no idea of the extent to which they are used?


William Stevens Fielding: They are not extensively used. They are used in certain mines where the water contains certain acids and where the ordinary pump would not stand the work. It is an advance, I believe, in mining machinery which has not been classified in the past.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: As a matter of fact, most of the plungers in these pumps are brass plungers; I think the large majority of them. Would the minister, therefore, not consider a reduction also in the brass plungers for these pumps?


William Stevens Fielding: This is an article not made in Canada and therefore the question of any home industry being affected does not enter at all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-Window shade or blind rollers: British Preferential tariff, 20 per cent; Intermediate tariff, 30 iper cent; General tariff 35 per cent.
William Stevens Fielding: The present rates are, 221, 20 and 35.
<*.LLuig ana sneet waading of wool, cotton or other fibre cotton warps and cotton yarns, dyed or not, n.o.p.: British tariff, 15 per cent; Intermediate tariff, 22} per cent; General tariff 25 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
 - 

uatta, u
William Stevens Fielding: The present rates are, 171, 221 and 25 per cent.
Customs tariff-Gray cotton fabrics of flax, unbleached, n o p [DOT] ferentia! tariff, 12} per cent; ' tariff, 22} per cent; General tariff
fabrics and British PreIntermediate 25 per cent.


William Stevens Fielding: The present rates are, 15, 221 and 25.


William Charles Good: I would like to ask the minister if these commodities are used in the manufacture of garments?.
Customs tariff-Plungers or valves made of porcelain for pumps t<j be used exclusively in mining operations: British Preferential tariff, free; Intermediate tariff, free; General tariff, free.
Mr/.i FIELDING:	I would think so,
probably.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think the minister
has not forgotten the evidence given be-
Customs Tariff

fore the Cost of Living Committee a year or two ago, when, I believe, the firm which made these articles gave evidence that they had made a profit of 310 per cent on their capital invested. I think, in view .of that, they might well stand a further reduction. Cottons in Canada are selling higher than they should; there is no question about that. If a firm manufacturing cotton could make 310 per cent profit, I think they could stand a further reduction.


William Stevens Fielding: But 121 per cent is
not a high rate on any class of cotton.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: But it runs to 25.


William Stevens Fielding: These are goods that
come from Great Britain.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-White cotton fabrics, and fabrics of flax, bleached, n.o.p.; tailors' bol-lands of linen and towelling of linen or cotton in the web, coloured or not: British Preferential tariff, 15 per cent; Intermediate tariff, 22J per cent; General tariff, 25 per cent.
William Stevens Fielding: 21 off the British
preference.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-Fabrics of cotton or flax, printed dyed or coloured n.o.p.: British preferential tariff, 22J per cent; Intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; General tariff, 32J per cent.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Why should the duty on this be higher than on the other commodities?


William Stevens Fielding: The one is in the first
stage of manufacture; the unbleached cotton would be used in further process of manufacture.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not think that
holds good, because the unbleached bears the same duty as the bleached which is a further process of manufacture. They are all too high. I think this one should be brought down to the level of the others.


William Stevens Fielding: There is a difference
between the two classes.


William Charles Good: In regard to this item, it
seems to me that the difference between the Preferential tariff of 221 per cent and the Preferential tariff in the preceding item of 15, is a direct discrimination in favour of our Canadian manufacturers, at the expense of the Canadian consumer. I would like to see this item stand.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, if the hon. member desires it, but the other item, which bears a lower duty, is the first process of 
manufacture, and this article is in a more advanced stage of manufacture, and, by the general practice, bears the higher rate of duty.


William Charles Good: I think that is the reason it
should be reduced, because our Canadian manufacturers have been making unholy profits, and should not be protected, at the expense of the Canadian consumer.


William Stevens Fielding: There have been very
large importations, and that is a consideration to be taken into account.
Item stands.
Customs tariff-Linen yarn, when imported by manufacturers of tailors' hollands of linen, ifor use exclusively in the manufacture of tailors' hollands of linen in their own factories: British Preferential tariff, free; Intermediate tariff, free; General tariff, free.


John Alexander Wallace: Is there a bounty paid on linen yarn manufactured in Canada?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, there is a small bounty paid under an act passed three years ago appropriating a sum for [bounties. This is the last year of the bounty. The amount paid last year was very small. The amount appropriated was not earned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-Blankets of any material: British Preferential tariff 225 per cent, Intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; General tariff. 35 per cent.
Henry Elvins Spencer: I wish to protest against the high duty on blankets. In no place are blankets more extensively used than m western Canada. We have hardly a household out west that does not use them in quantities. Linen is very little used. Blankets are particularly used by workmen who go into the woods and other places. The poorest of our people need blankets, and I feel that blankets should be allowed to come in with the very lowest possible protection. Furthermore, the wool grown in Canada is being sold below cost by the producer. In view of that fact, why should the manufacturer have so much protection? Everybody is wondering why the sheep industry in this country is going down. Is it to be wondered at, when so little is paid the producer, and the article is so dear when it is manufactured into blankets?


William Stevens Fielding: We have brought these into one class, 221 British preference, and these are articles which will come from Great Britain. The old rates were 221, 25 and 30. 'There is a substantial reduction. Notwithstanding the high duties,

Customs Tariff
there are very large imports. The imports under the preference last year were $154,000 and under the general tariff $199,000; so that there is evidently competition and it is not a monopoly in the hands of any manufacturer.


William Charles Good: What is the reduction in the British preference in this item?


William Stevens Fielding: There were three items before. We have put them into one. The rate before was 221, 25 and' 30. We made it 221.


William Charles Good: There is no reduction in the British preference in blankets?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, some paid 30 and some paid 25; they are now 221. There is a material reduction in that item.


Mr. GOULD:: I must say I am very pleased with the manner in which the minister is accepting the suggestions from this corner. I wish to make another suggestion in that, supporting the sentiments of my hon. friend who spoke concerning the blankets which are absolutely necessary in our western country. In so far as the economic question is concerned, in the West at the present time, funds are not available in many instances. I know cases where people are unable to secure the necessary blankets to provide for comfort. I could give a concrete instance right close to my home, where a collector went to collect money for agricultural implements, and he was met at the door by a woman wearing only cotton, with a child in her arms wrapped up in old clothes. That is not necessarily an isolated case. But when we read that 221 and 30 per cent protection is given to these industries to manufacture or, sell blankets, it seems to me things are not based on equity, and I would plead for those people who really require blankets, and are unable to secure them on account of the prohibitive tariff, because it is really prohibitive to them. I would be glad if the minister would voluntarily submit to a substantial reduction. If not, will he allow the item to stand for further discussion.


Henry Lumley Drayton: One remark made by an hon. member to my left has reference to a matter of great interest. He points out the extremely low price of wool, and the position of the wool producer in this country. It is to be expected, in so far as the lower processes of wool manufacture are ioncerned, because the policies of my hon. friends opposite have
been absolutely put into effect. We are dependent entirely, in connection with the whole of our wool production, on the good graces of our friends to the south. We did not erect, as we should have, such plants as would enable us in Canada to take our raw wool, spin it, turn it into tops, and produce woollen goods for our own people. It is very good wool, although lots of people think it is not. However, I point out to members from the West, the reason why the price of wool is what it is to-day. There is no mystery about it. We had no home market, the manufacturer could not use the wool in its raw state. We had not the necessary plants for looking after the primary stages; we sold all our wool in the outside market, and, as a matter of fact, 95 per cent of our Canadian wool was sold in the Boston market. It cannot get there to-day.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: This is very interesting to me, because we have been told by our high protectionist friends that a high tariff would build up home industries. Yet, after having a duty as high as 35i per cent on woollen goods for forty years, they admit that they have no factories in Canada that will manufacture wool into cloth. This is the most frank admission I have ever heard by my hon. friend to my right. If he is as candid as that in regard to all these items, he will admit that protection has not built up home industries in Canada as it was claimed it would, nor has it furnished the market. Some day when there is more time, I should like to analyze that home market.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am candid at all times.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: But misguided.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should like my hon. friend also to be candid. What is the duty on raw wool? What protection is there on your raw wool, on your wool tops or spun wool? There is none. If you had had it, the Canadian farmer today would have had a market for his wool; we could have said that there was some relation between the price of the raw material and that of the finished article, and if there was not a proper relation, we would have been in some position to enforce it.


Mr. WARNER:: I should like to ask the hon. gentleman (Sir Henry Drayton) why our Canadian manufacturers do not buy our wool instead of letting it go to the other side of the line?
313C
Customs Tariff


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think I
have explained that; but if I may, I should like to explain it again. There is no protection for wool in the rough, for wool in the lower forms of manufacture. We have in this country no plant which takes that raw wool and puts it into such a condition that manufacturers of woollen goods can use it. There are different activities in wool. You have your cleaning, spinning and topping processes, all of which necessarily have to be gone through before the wool gets to your woollen manufacturer. That is not peculiar to Canada. You have all these different activities with regard to wool. In other words, the man who makes the cloth as we do in Canada, or the man who makes the blankets, is not the man who turns the wool from its original rough state into such an article as it is possible to manufacture blankets or cloth from.


John Evans: I should like to inform the hon. gentleman that last winter I saw a suit of clothes made of Canadian wool, and the whole thing was done in a small factory in Nova Scotia. While I am on my feet, I should like to urge the minister to reconsider this item, as I think there is an imposition in regard to this item if there ever was in any item of the tariff as it stands to-day. Blankets are articles used by the very poorest as well as by the rich. In fact, the poor need them more than the rich, and I would certainly put this item on the free list or, at least, cut it in half.


William Charles Good: I am sure the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) did not desire to misrepresent things; but I feel satisfied that there is now and has been in the recent past a very large manufacture in Canada of woollen goods from Canadian wool. I was in the warehouse of the Co-operative Wool Growers of Canada not very long ago, and I was shown many articles, yarns and woven articles of various kinds, which were stated to be made entirely out of Canadian wool in Canadian factories. If that is true, the statement just made by the ex-Minister of Finance is surely astray.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is perfectly true that, in some small instances and to a very small extent, you will find this, more so down in Nova Scotia than anywhere else. You have, in Nova Scotia, homespuns, while in Ontario the co-operative association has been trying to find a

solution for the problem. It has not beer a manufacturers' evil or a manufacturers' blight in Ontario; it has been the efforts of the farmers themselves, through their co-operative society, to try to do something with Canadian wool. In Nova Scotia, as I say, we have a cerain amount of business in which the wool is carried from its primary to its finished condition. We know it chiefly as homespun

Halifax homespun-a first class cloth, and that is made out of Canadian wool. But this is the old-fashioned way of making the cloth. This does not in any way compete with our regular manufacturers of woollens. As I say, we have been trying to find a way of utilizing our wool in Ontario, and we are getting some yarns out.


William Charles Good: Good cloth.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Canadian
wool is of first rate quality. Is that co. operative society going on now? What is it doing now? How much wool can it handle to-day and how much is it handling? This was tried, not only in Ontario, but in British Columbia, where a very excellent wool is grown from which you can get a warp 21 inches long, which is as fine a bit of wool as you can get in Australia. Is this going on? It is not going on; and my hon. friends will find, if they look at the tariff, that there is no protection on these wools in their primary form. If you look at your tariff, you will see that all these wool tops come in free. The top wool that is imported free is wool in such a condition that it can be further manufactured into cloth. You will search in vain for any tariff upon the real wool which is used here; so the result is that our farmers' market was really an American market for Canadian wools. Our cooperative friends in Ontario put up a plant at Weston, and they managed to keep a little more money in Canada.


William Charles Good: That is only a warehouse,
not a factory.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, it is not
a factory. What they did was to collect wool, clean it and sort it with a view of getting better prices. I am speaking roughly from a recollection, which, I think, is correct, of a year and a half old, but 95 per cent of that wool was, as I say, sold on the Boston market. We require wool in Canada. There is no reason why we should be bringing wool in free and giving it to our manufacturers and having our output sent out of the country in that way

Customs Tariff
As regards that particular item, I do not know why, but really the policies of my hon. friends to my left have been in effect. The farmer has no protection on his product, and the farmers' market to-day has entirely disappeared. While we are importing, as we should not be, large quantities of material from other countries, our wool is practically unsaleable, with the further result, as I have pointed out, that we have not what we ought to have, namely, something like a fair relation between the cost of the raw wool on the one side and that of the finished article on the other. Generally speaking, that wool cannot be sold in its native state; there is no market for it. On the other h..nd, the manufacturer here who could make use of these spinning, cleaning and topping mills, if they were installed and were running to capacity in this country, has to pay for the imported wool prices entirely out of proportion to the prices at which Canadian wool is sold.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The remarks of my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) in regard to wool and woollen goods are in keeping with what he has said in connection with manufactured goods. The condition to which he now draws attention existed last year and the year before, when he was in power. He apparently knew that this evil condition existed, yet he did . not raise a finger to remedy it. However, that is not what I rose to speak about. I think that the duty on blankets should be reduced. I find in item 581a that silk cloth pays a duty of 10 per cent, under the British preferential tariff, while blankets must pay a duty of 22J per cent. I can hardly see the justice of imposing a duty of 22i per cent on blankets, which are an absolute necessity for poor people, while the duty on silk cloth is reduced to 10 per cent. If it were the other way about you would not find me making one kick, because those who can buy silk can afford to pay a duty on it. I agree with some hon. members who have already spoken, that blankets are not a luxury but an absolute necessity, and in comparison with the duty on silk, this duty on blankets is most unjust. I hope that the minister will reduce it. I am inclined to think that when he goes to church to-morrow and listens to a sermon on the brotherhood of man, and justice, and so forth, he will feel like amending this item.
Mr. FIE I,DING:	On a large class of
.blankets there is a reduction of 71 per cent, so that the reduction in the present item
is very considerable indeed. The silk to which my hon. friend has referred in another item is raw material that is used in the manufacture of finished articles, and wherever you find any finished article you will see that the duties are quite high. But the duty on materials that go into the manufacture of finished goods is lower in most lines.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Do I understand that this silk is raw material? Let me read a part of the item to which I have referred:
Silk cloth, woven in the gum, r.ot boiled or bleached, measuring not less than 20 inches in width.
I should like to know what cocoon spun that web.


William Stevens Fielding: Are there not some more words in that item?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Yes.
-when imported for the purpose of being dyed and finished in Canada, under regulations, etc.


William Stevens Fielding: It is in a sense raw material.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not regard it as such. It is as far manufactured as blankets are. The blankets are manufactured out of plain wool, and this silk is woven out of the raw stuff. The blanket pays a duty of 22i per cent, while the silk cloth, which, I contend, has gone through a process of manufacture just as complete as the blanket, is dutiable only at 10 per cent.


William Stevens Fielding: The blanket is a finished article.


Oliver Robert Gould: I do not think the argument of the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) will apply in this case. He says that we have not the initial industries in Canada and must therefore import the materials in a more or less finished state. How would the hon. gentleman apply that argument to hides? There are tanneries all over this country, and yet we find that whenever it is pointed out that the initial industries are already estab-Jished, it is stated that we have not the particular kind of hide necessary for shoe manufacturing. Whatever arguments may be advanced, I know that as a matter of fact the consumer pays in the end.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the Chair, and the House took recess.
Customs Tariff

After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 143 (from the Senate), for the relief of Frederick McClelland Aiken.- Mr. Macdonald (Pictou).


[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
Customs tariff-Blankets of any material: British Preferential tariff, 22i per cent; Intermediate tariff, 30 (per cent; General tariff, 35 Der cent.
Daniel Webster Warner: It seems to me that after forty years of protection the manufacturer should be in a position to use our homegrown wool. As the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) has pointed out, very little of our wool is prepared here to be used by the manufacturer in Canada, though our wool is of good quality.^ It strikes me that if we reduced the tariff oil blankets the situation would be very materially changed. I suggest that in view of past experiences the minister consider the advisability of letting blankets, manufactured in the United States out of wool produced in this country, come into Canada without the payment of the amount of duty now imposed. The manufacturer now is given a double advantage. As he can import wool free of duty, he is not obliged to prepare our wool for manufacture. And, as he has a high protection on blankets, he can be sure of this market for his goods. If the duty on blankets were reduced, he would be more likely to prepare and use Canadian wool, and, with reasonable duties on blankets, he could carry on his manufacture without danger of being undersold by his foreign competitor. The grower of wool is not fairly treated when he produces the raw material for the manufacture of a commodity so necessary in this country and then is obliged to pay for the finished article, blankets, a price which is largely enhanced by the tariff.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The blanket is the
poor man's necessity; it is not an article used only by the rich. Next to food, the blanket is an article of prime necessity, in the country as well as in the city. We shall be bringing into this country quite a number of immigrants within the next few years, and the least we can do for them
[Mr. Gould. 1
is to enable them to get their blankets at as reasonable a price as possible. I have seen the conditions under which thousands of immigrants live, and there is no question that blankets are to them a matter of pure necessity. When winter comes in the western country, the question of securing a sufficient supply of warm blankets to keep the children warm is second in importance only to the obtaining of enough nourishing food. I suggest, therefore, that the minister reduce the British preferential tariff on blankets to 15 per cent.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: If any further evidence were necessary to prove that this budget is based on the principle of protection, not on the principle of revenue, a comparison of this item with No. 447a, which refers to tractors, would supply it. Tractors are put on the free list. A few days ago, speaking on the budget, I suggested that if it were necessary to. produce revenue on these items the minister should impose a small duty on the tractor and reduce by a corresponding amount the duty on cotton and woollen clothing, something which is more necessary than the tractor. After all, the tractor is used only by farmers who are, perhaps, a little better off than others, whereas cotton and woollen clothing is needed by people of all occupations, regardless of their station in life. I hope the minister can see his way clear to take some action along that line.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is not my purpose to argue this point; I do not wish to speak on each of these items as they come up. But I should like to say that I have come here instructed to urge that taxes should be taken off the necessities of life. That is about all I can say in the matter. I urge upon the minister that point of view.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I endeavour to appreciate the difficulties that confront the Minister of Finance in devising a tariff to meet the requirements of the country under present conditions. The tariff is a very complex piece of machinery, and the minister and the Government must of necessity be guided by the conditions that confront them.
With respect to this particular item, the raw material, wool, is mostly (brought into Canada duty free. We have an immense area in this country, a large part of which is rough' and not under a very high state of cultivation, and I would think that the

Customs Tariff
wool-growing industry would be one that couild be carried on without very much difficulty. The duty on the manufactured article should allow the home manufacturer to turn the raw material into the finished product and be able to Compete, tat at the present time we are confronted with very disturbed conditions. A few years ago, and particularly during the war, sheep raising was a very profitable industry. Immediately after the war, as was pointed out by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), the market for our wool was largely found in the United States. Boston was the chief wool market for the North American continent. We have now been practically excluded from that market, and consequently during the past two or three years the price of wool has fallen very low indeed. In fact, at one time last year I do not believe that more than six cents per pound could be realized for coarse wool. These wools are well adapted for blankets and many articles of clothing. We hear a great deal about developing home industries, but it is significant that the people who are inclined to favour the development of home industries on all occasions are not so keen to support them themselves. I could not help wondering as I left the Chamber at six o'clock, how many of the members I encountered in the corridors, and who advocated the development of home industries, really patronized those home industries, and were wearing Canadian-made woollens, for instance. A few years ago the coarse long wools were the fashion. Scotch tweeds were regarded as the most expensive and most desirable garments, tat fashions have changed, and people have developed more extravagant habits, and now instead of patronizing home industries, and wearing Canadian tweeds, they turn up their nose at it, and will wear nothing but the finest worsteds. Consequently, I believe we ourselves are to a great extent to blame for the conditions that confront the woollen industry in this country to-day. One would naturally think that with the tariff we have on blankets, which is fairly substantial, and with vvool selling at the low price it has been for the past two years, there would be many people engaged in the manufacture of woollens, tat that is not the case, and it is to some extent because of the uncertainty that prevails, not knowing what may develop at any time.
As I have already pointed out, our market was largely in the United States. We
found ourselves suddenly shut out of that market, and consequently the farmers in this country to-day are going out of the raising of sheep. Bather than suffer a loss in raising mutton and wool, they are simply quitting the business and turning to something else. They often get going at a fairly good stride in some line that they take up when disturbing conditions arise. All this goes to show the need of having a substantial national policy with due regard for the conditions with which we are surrounded. You cannot afford to jeopardize our industries just for the sake of gratifying the desires of a small section of the community. The older I get the more firmly convinced I am that we must broaden out in our views and get rid of the selfish idea of gratifying our own personal ambitions or desires, regardless of the general effect it is going to have on the country as a whole. I have before me the United States tariff, and it is practically prohibitive to-day against wool imports. I also notice that the new bill now before the United States Senate proposed a tariff of 35 cents a pound on wool entering that country. These are conditions we have to deal with, and which the minister must take into consideration in framing the tariff.
Our tariff is not a scientific one and I am thoroughly convinced that we should have a commission in the Finance Department which would keep in touch with the conditions that prevail and draft a tariff which would meet our present requirements and develop home industries as much as possible. It is not much use to spend a little time now and again revising the tariff. It is impossible for any one looking at the tariff only from his own standpoint to realize the bearing it may have on other industries and the country as a whole. This particular industry that we are considering should be safeguarded. Some one will say, Oh, look at the poor people. What is going to happen if you have a tariff of so much on blankets? I ask, Mr. Chairman, what is the matter with our people in Canada if they cannot manufacture blankets? Surely it is a simple process, and surely there is enough enterprise in this country to devlop such an industry. I think myself we ought to be fairly generous in our views, not only with regard to manufacturers, but with regard to the producers and the workers of this country. Our interests are so interwoven that one cannot suffer without the other suffering as well. I am not one of
Customs Tariff

those who believe that if we have a reasonable tariff in this country, the manufacturers will exact the last cent of protection in profits from the people. Is there no competition among the manufacturers in our own country? It is this disturbing element of trying to adapt ourselves to changed conditions in other countries that is the worst feature of our present tariff system, as I see it. It does not matter how much we might approve of and advocate free trade in this country; it is an absolute impossibility. You cannot have free trade unless people will trade with you. If they are going to exclude us from their markets, are we going to allow them to dispose of their surplus products in our market and jeopardize our home industries? We ought to look at this question in a more sane manner than we have been inclined to do in the past. I have been surprised to find in this House representatives who claim to he farmers advocating the abolition of the tariff on all articles so that we can get them cheap. It may be that a cheap country is a good country to live in, but the standard of living in this country is undoubtedly as high as anywhere else in the world. It is therefore very important that every class in the community should be safeguarded from outside competition as thoroughly as it is possible to do. We cannot afford to have class antagonism.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Donald Sutherland: I am glad hon.
gentlemen appreciate that fact. It would be one of the most unfortunate things that could happen in this country for one class of the community to lose sight of the interest of the other classes. If you will study thoroughly the statistics of the trade and commerce of Canada you will find that many products natural to our country are being imported from foreign countries where labour is cheap. These products are being imported into Canada to-day, and that is largely responsible for the condition which now prevails on the farms of this country. Canadian farmers require protection just as much as any other class of the community, and when we reach that stage-


Daniel Webster Warner: Does the hon. member
consider that the condition now existing in this country would have been worse than it is if we had had less protection or free trade?
[Mr. Sutherland.!


Donald Sutherland: I have been working over the records and I notice that the duty on agricultural implements is very much less than it would have been had the Reciprocity pact of 1911 gone into effect.


Daniel Webster Warner: Mr. Chairman, I claim
that my question has not been answered.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order. The hon.
member is not required to answer questions unless he feels so inclined.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is it not a fact that
the Reciprocity agreement did not apply to agricultural implements at all?


Donald Sutherland: That is where
my hon. friend is wrong. It certainly did apply to agricultural implements, and in every instance the duty under it would have been much higher than it is to-day-very much higher; also the duty on cement, in which my hon. friend from (Victoria and Carleton, N.B.) is very much interested would have been higher under the reciprocity pact than it is to-day, and the same with the duties on many other articles. However I am getting away from the item before the committee. I want to give the Minister of Finance a little encouragement if I possibly can, and to assure him that he need not be stampeded by the criticisms that are directed at him. I consider that he has a very difficult course to pursue under present conditions.


An hon. MEMBER:: You did not support his budget though.


Donald Sutherland: If the Finance
Minister had carried out the views I am expressing to-day more fully I am inclined to think I would have supported his budget. The trouble with that budget is that it does not protect something which, in my opinion, should be protected. I am perfectly convinced that a much better condition of affairs will prevail in this country when we have a little more confidence in each other and adopt a less suspicious attitude one toward the other If we are going to overcome our difficulties-because we have difficulties to surmount and they are very difficult indeed-we will have to work as a united people towards a common goal.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Donald Sutherland: This is not a
light matter by any means, and those who have anything at stake in Canada must regard the present situation as very seri-

Customs Tariff
ous. We should do everything that lies in our power to encourage manufacturing in our own country. We should produce everything that this country is capable of producing and we should encourage, as much as we possibly can the development of the wonderful resources which we. possess. I hope that that will be the view which the government will take in regard to this matter. I want to see a broad, stable, national policy adopted in Canada,- one that will permit of the utilization of the raw materials that we have in such abundance, and will enable us to turn out the finished article. When we reach that stage we do not need to fear for the future. This idea that we must change our whole fiscal policy because some country adjacent to us changes its policy is an erroneous one. I think it will be found ere long that changes will take place in the tariff policy of the adjoining republic and if we are to follow every change which they may resolve upon it will mean interruptions to our trade in other directions which we may have been promoting. The industry which is affected by the present duty is one which has been placed in such jeopardy that the Canadian flocks have been slaughtered and disposed of by the tens of thousands, whereas under ordinary conditions those flocks ought to contribute mush to a very profitable branch of the agricultural industry. As it is the prospects are brightening and the price of wool is more than double what it was this time last year. The chief trouble in the matter of wool was the tremendous quantities which were purchased by the British government during the war. This resulted in the accumulation of great quantities, which were subsequently placed on the market. That surplus has now been pretty well absorbed but it is, to my mind, a most unfortunate thing that there is practically no duty at the present time on wool entering Canada. I have studied this situation and I know that in the woollen mills to which I have had access it was practically all Australian wool which has been used. Now I know that our coarse Canadian wools are not adapted for underclothing and similar garments, but for blankets, tweeds, and other articles our long Canadian wools are of just as good quality, as much that is being imported to clothe our people. We ought to encourage our home industries, and I think the Minister of Finance is wise in leaving a reasonable tariff on these articles in order to permit of their being manufactured in Canada. I am satisfied that when it is realized that
the tariff on these goods is not going to be abolished they will be manufactured to a much greater extent in this country than is the case at present.


Mr. McBRIDE:: I would like to say a few words in connection with this item. I have already stated in this House that I was not a free trader-I never have been and never will be-but I must say that I would like it if the Finance Minister could see his way to cut the duty on these articles by at least one-half. In the tariff platforms to which I have given my adhesion I have been associated with some good Liberals, and some good Conservatives too, and I think without exception we all agreed that the Canadian duties on clothing ought to come down. Clothing is something that is of paramount importance in this country. There are few countries in the world where the people need more clothing than do the people of Canada by reason of the cold climate. I would not suggest that we should remove the duty entirely. For example I would not abolish the tariff on high class clothing, but tweeds, blankets and other articles used by the working people should be allowed to come into this country at a very low rate of duty. These articles are vitally necessary and the people must have them. I repeat that I do not wish to see the duty removed entirely, but I do think that in the present instance it should at least be cut in half.


Mr. BRETHEN:: I would like to offer my protest against the adoption of this item as it stands at present. Blankets, flannels, wearing apparel and underclothing contribute not only to the comfort but to the actual welfare of practically every man, woman and child in Canada, and in taking the stand that I do I am actuated by a belief in the motto "The greatest good to the greatest number." I believe there are some members on this side of the House who raised no objection to the budget when it was brought down because they believed that full opportunity would be afforded for discussion and criticism when we came to consider the tariff items in committee. I think the time has now arrived when we should subject some of those items to attack.
I think, possibly, many items have been passed, and we have allowed them to go through rather smoothly, accepting the argument of the Minister of Finance CMr. Fielding), but I think we are perfectly justified in opposing these two items, and I would like to move, as to this particular item, that the British preferential tariff be
Customs Tariff

reduced to 15 per cent, the intermediate tariff to 20 per cent, and the general tariff to 25 per cent.


William Stevens Fielding: May I ask my hon. friend not to press the amendment. I have already intimated, hoth generally, and with reference to this particular item, before recess, that if any hon. member desires an item to be 'held over till the next sitting, I am quite agreeable. I would not like the hon. member to press his amendment, 'because I desire an opportunity of considering it. However, I would be glad to have the debate proceed, and, at the conclusion of the debate, the matter may stand for further consideration. I have no desire to press the items through.


George Arthur Brethen: I will withdraw the amendment, and allow the item to stand, for the consideration of the Prime Minister and the House.


William Stevens Fielding: If the hon. member wishes to continue the discussion, I have 130 desire to stop it.


Mr. SHAW:: I wanted to ask one question, because I think, perhaps, it might assist some of us in coming to a conclusion. What class of blankets are contained in the three separate classifications the hon. minister referred to, and what is the amount of the tariff on each particular classification?


William Stevens Fielding: There were three classes of blankets before. One is called pure wool. Practically speaking, there is very little now imported. There is hardly such a thing to be found in merchandise as pure wool. The blanket most commonly used in Canada is a mixture. It comes in under "Blankets not otherwise provided for." The duty on the pure wool is 22J, 30 and 35 per cent, practically the same rate we now propose, but those are used by a limited number of people. On blankets "not otherwise provided for," the duty is 30, 30 and 35 per cent. That is the largest class of blankets used by the Canadian people. Then we have Canadian blankets at 25, 30 and 35 per cent. The main item is 566 in the old tariff. "Blankets not otherwise provided for." The rate was 30 per cent, and it is being reduced to 22i per cent.


Mr. MILLAR:: As the hon. minister has been kind enough to agree that the item should stand over, I will say only a few words. I was pleased to hear the remarks of the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland). It seems to me that, after

forty years of protection, the light is beginning to dawn on some of our friends to the right. They begin to talk about each industry giving reasonable consideration to other industries. I am afraid that, in the past, there has not been enough of that. The trouble at the present time seems to be that various industries have been striving to get all they could, without thought of the other. I am afraid too much of that is going on at the present time, and I will cite one case. A couple of days ago I received a letter from a friend in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, and though I have not the letter to hand, I remember the effect of it. It read like this:
The banks, in order to get around the Bank Act, are discounting notes.
Further on he said:
I know of a case in the town of - where the bank is charging a farmer 9 per cent interest, and compelling him to pay interest in advance on the first of every month.
I just cite that case to show that the burden we are carrying, because various industries have been taking too much, has not disappeared. I was talking to the head of one of the loan companies about a year ago, and he said, " Some of the loan companies are now charging 9 per cent interest. Can agriculture possibly stand that rate?" I said, " It certainly cannot." Yet, they are charging that rate now. Now, in our present condition, if the fact that manufacturers and other industries are losing money-as I believe they are-has brought us to a state of affairs where we can stop, have a heart to heart talk amongst ourselves, gain sympathy and consideration for other industries and try to reach an adjustment, so that no industry will continue to suffer, I think we will have made some headway. I realize the difficult position in which the Finance Minister is placed; if we decide to cut down the rate on any item as a result of which he is going to lose money, we must be ready to offer some substitute, or else our national debt will increase. When we are faced with that proposition and asked " Where are you going to get an equal amount of money from some other source?" it is difficult to answer. Therefore, I am quite considerate of the Finance Minister's attitude. I agree practically with all that has been said about the great need of the poorer classes, and I would, with as much courtesy as I can, urge the Finance Minister, if he could see

Customs Tariff
his way clear, to reduce the duty on woollen goods, especially considering that it would hurt no industry, because, I understand, from remarks that were made before six o'clock, wool is not being manufactured here. Therefore, it cannot be urged that industry is being injured to any extent. I hope, now the matter has been allowed to stand over, that he will be able to reduce the duty on woollen goods. I do not think it is wise that we should attack item after item, but there are some items-and this is one of them-in regard to which we should ask the Finance Minister to do his very utmost to reduce the duty.
Item stands.
Customs tariff-Flannels, plain, not fancy: fabrics of wool or of cotton and wool, commonly described and sold as lustres, mohair, alpaca, and Italian linings: British Preferential tariff, 20 per cent; Intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; General tariff, 35 per cent.


Oliver Robert Gould: It seems to me that the next three items, 566, 567 and 568, would precipitate a debate similar to the one that has just taken place on item 565, and as the minister has consented to allow 565 [DOT] to stand, I suggest that the three following items be allowed to stand.


William Stevens Fielding: They are very much of the same class, and the same objections might be raised to them. Therefore, I will allow them to stand.
Items stand.
Customs tariff-Silk cloth woven In the gum, not boiled or bleached, measuring not less than twenty inches in width, when imported for the purpose of being dyed and finished in Canada, under regulations prescribed by the Minister of Customs and Excise : British Preferential tariff, 10 per cent; Intermediate tariff 171 per cent; General tariff 30 per cent.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: When one of the other items was under consideration before recess, I referred to the fact that on silk cloth woven the duty was only 10 per cent. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) called attention to the fact that the item which we were considering then, blankets, was a finished article. On looking over some of the others that we have passed, I find white cotton fabrics, woven the same as the silk fabrics are, with a duty of 15 per cent. This includes towelling of linen or cotton in the web, coloured or not. I cannot help thinking there has been a discrimination in favour of the very noor people who wear all silk clothing! I would like to see if the thing could not be balanced
by something more being put on the silk and something taken off the cotton.'


William Stevens Fielding: Wherever there is a lower duty on silk, it is silk in an initial process of manufacture, which silk is the raw material for the next stage. Wherever you get the finished article of silk, I am sure you will find the duty is a high one.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff

Boots and shoes, pegged or wire fastened, with unstitched soles, close edged: British Preferential tariff, 15 per cent; Intermediate tariff, 221 per cent; General tariff, 25 per cent.
Boots, shoes, slippers and Insoles of any material, n.o.ip.: British Preferent'al tariff, 171 per cent; Intermediate tariff, 27J per cent; General tariff, 30 per cent.
Joseph Tweed Shaw: I would suggest that items 611 and 611a be left over for further consideration.


William Stevens Fielding: 
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: If there is in this tariff list one item that should be reduced, it is this one. Last summer I was in a harness shop and a farmer brought in a cowhide to sell it. The cowhide was weighed and the farmer said: " I want a hame-strap now, and I will take the balance in change." The harness maker said: " You will owe me 25 cents in change." The farmer got one cent a pound for a cowhide that weighed fifty pounds, and he had to pay that harness maker 25 cents in money besides the cowhide, to get the hame-strap. In that case, I do not understand why a duty of this kind should be on harness. I am very much interested in what the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) said about one industry considering another. There is no comparison between the price of hides and the present price of harness, and I know, when the minister looks into this matter and especially if he gets the information that he can get with regard to these things, he will certainly reduce the duty on harness.


William Stevens Fielding: The duty is 17i per cent under the British preferential tariff, and surely, as things go now, that is not an extravagant rate of duty on anything.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Yes, but it must be
taken into consideration that it will take

Customs Tariff

about twenty cowhides to pay the duty on one set of harness.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member must have more cows.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The minister realizes that we must increase our stock. This item ought to stand over with the items respecting boots and shoes.


John Evans: The ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) said that raw wool cannot be prepared in Canada for manufacture. I am just wondering what is the matter with our hides.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Evans: I was speaking of beef
hides. This is a raw product that we cannot get olf our hands at the present time. Last year during the months of June and July, some 8,000,000 pounds of hides were imported into this country at a time when farmers from one end of the Dominion to the other could not sell a hide at any price. I am asking what is the matter, and I am going to make a straight charge that there is discrimination in trade. There is no other explanation possible for me than direct discrimination in trade on the part of the manufacturers of this country. Everyone who had a beef hide or everyone who happened to kill a steer out West could not get rid of his hide, and at the same time, last June and July, I find that some 8,000,000 pounds of hides came in at prices that would have been very profitable to us. The price was ten cents per pound for cattle hides, 15J cents for calfskins, and 151 cents for sheepskins. Some hundreds of thousands of pounds of other skins were imported. What is the matter? I was very much interested a few days ago in listening to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) reading from one of his old speeches in which he recognized that, as far back as 1911, there was great unrest amongst the agriculturist classes in this country, particularly in western Canada. I can assure the minister to-day that the unrest then was nothing compared with what it is now, and some means will have to be found whereby our raw products can be worked up into the finished article. For forty years now we have paid many millions of dollars in protection, drawbacks and so on for the sake of building up industries in this country; yet, we find that one of the primary industries to work up one of the most common raw materials that we have is not available. This is a most preposterous 
state of affairs. If any evidence was ever needed more than what we have at present to show that protection is a fallacy, we find it right here. The hon. member for South Oxford1 spoke about the question of class privilege. We as a class have had no protection. We as a class are asking for no protection. Some hon. members seem to 'smile at that; but to let them know the difference, I will just point out that, did we have a protective tariff on our products, say the chief one that we are raising, namely wheat, which tariff would give us the privilege of charging the home consumer a price that would give us something that could be called a profit and of exporting at a cheaper rate, then the hon. member would know that there was some class privilege. We are the class which, along with other producers of the new wealth of the country each year, has had to bear the whole burden of protection.


Mr. STEVENS:: My hon. friend said
a large quantity of hides were imported last year. I have just turned up the tariff, and hides are free. Surely protection is not, therefore, responsible for the low price of hides in Canada. Does my hon. friend not consider that if we had, for instance, a duty on hides, that might have assisted the farmer in the sale of his stock during the past year in competition with this foreign importation? My second question is this: Surely, he does not mean to say that buyers of hides in Canada brought hides in from some place else and paid more for them than hides were selling at in Canada?


John Evans: They did. My hon. friend's question only emphasizes what I have said. It is a fact that cattle hides were brought into this country at a price of ten cents a pound, while farmers in the West would have been glad to have got that price and would have paid freight on the hides to their destination. It can be accounted for in no other way than a direct discrimination in trade. The hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) says that a cheap living country may be good to live in. He does not quite know that, but he thinks it may. The fact is-and I want hon. gentlemen to take notice of this-that the cost of production of articles which bring in the income of this country year after year, lis out of proportion altogether to world prices, to the great detriment of Canada to-day. I repeat that if further evidence is needed that protection is one of the greatest fallacies that have ever been

Customs Tariff
foisted on the people, that evidence is to be found in connection with the importation of raw material.


Donald Sutherland: I hope the hon. member did not misunderstand me. 1 certainly did not say that a country where living conditions were of a low standard was a desirable place to live in. I pointed out that the standard of living in this country was very high, and that only when the standard of living was high could you expect high wages to be paid; while, on the other hand, where living was very cheap everything else was cheap in proportion and the people did not attain the position which we have reached. The hon. member evidently misunderstood what I said.


Oliver Robert Gould: I was wondering whether all the tariff for revenue Liberals had gone home to-night, because we have not been getting many expressions of opinion from that section of the House. In connection with the saddlery business considerable quantities of leather are procured from horse hides. Some hon. gentlemen have deprecated the fact that we have been able to receive hardly anything for our cow hides, or at least not sufficient to pay the freight; and it is well known that horse hides are cheaper still. Yet from horse hides is made the leather that enters largely into the manufacture of saddles and other articles of a similar kind. These hides are worth less than nothing, because it takes labour to produce them, and yet if you go into the stores you have to pay for the leather made from those hides, when manufactured into laces, $3 a pound, or 35 cents a string. This only emphasizes what the member for Qu'Ap-pelle (Mr. Millar) says, that there is something wrong. There certainly is a discrimination, and whether it is attributable to the tariff entirely, or to other things in part, we want to find out. The whole thing will bear a real investigation. I might say incidentally that those of us who undertake every spring to renew our harness supplies on the farm find it cheaper to buy these supplies at sales from farmers who have failed in their business. That is how the greater part of harness supplies is bought to-day.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Would the minister consider holding this item along with the item on boots and shoes?


William Stevens Fielding: If you press the request I will, but all we have done is to
201i
reduce the British rate 2h per cent, making the net result 17i per cent. Even from the point of view of my hon. friend opposite that is not a high duty, and I do not think there should be any objection to it.


Donald Sutherland: With reference to the question just brought up by my hon. friend (Mr. Gould), we all know that the price of hides has been very low during the past few years. But there is a difference in the quality of hides as in everything else, and the fact that there was' no duty on hides coming into Canada has enabled the manufacturers of leathers to purchase hides at a cheap rate in other countries. And the hides they get abroad are on the whole of a much better quality than the great bulk of hides that are offered for sales in Canada. Animals that are not in a highly finished condition when they go on the market do not make as good leather as do highly finished animals. Immense quantities of hides have been shipped from South America and the United States, and these imports have tended to demoralise our home market. This is another evidence of the need of protection for the farmers of this country as well as for every other class.


Thomas George McBride: How does my hon. friend make out that we have not as good cattle here as anywhere else?


Donald Sutherland: The hon. gentleman has asked a very pertinent question. If the embargo on our cattle in England keeps up we shall probably have as good cattle as can be found in any other country. Unfortunately the majority of our cattle go on the market before they are ready to be slaughtered. There is no doubt about that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-Hatters' bands (not cords) and hat sweats; hatters' tips and sides when cut >to shape; and cashmere when cut to shape for under-brims and hat covers.
All articles in this item when imported by hat and cap manufacturers for use exclusively in the manufacture of hats and caps in their own factories: British Preferential tariff, free; Intermediate tariff, free; General tariff, free.
William Charles Good: What are the rates of duty on hats?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: And caps?


William Stevens Fielding: The rates are 221 per cent preference and 35 per cent general. This particular item is already free in the tariff schedules, but the wording of the item has been changed because it
Customs Tariff

has been found that the language of the item as at present framed allows of some abuse. The item is really free. In another section, instead of declaring it to be free we let it come in under the ordin-
9 p.m. ary duty and provide for a drawback. Where an article is allowed to come in for a particular purpose at a lower rate it needs to be carefully watched so that there may be no abuses, and in some cases we levy the duty and give the drawback, because we can control it better that way.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: We have at last located the free traders in this country; they are evidently the manufacturers. These men decry the demand of the consumers for lower duties, but they get their raw material free just the same. I am glad to be able to locate these free traders. We have been chasing them all over the globe during the recent election and at last we have run them down.


William Stevens Fielding: Where do you find them?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: They are the manufacturers. They get their raw material free and then soak us 35 per cent on the finished product. And then they howl about free trade.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-Clothes wringers for domestic use, and parts thereof: British Preferential tariff, 20 per cent; Intermediate tariff, 30 per cent; General tariff, 32i per cent.
Oliver Robert Gould: This is an item that might well be considered, particularly in the interests of people in the rural districts who are not in a position to send their clothes to laundries. This article enters into the everyday work of women, and while the duty upon clothes wringers will no doubt bring in considerable revenue, at the same time I think we should make them as cheap as possible.


William Stevens Fielding: There is a reduction both under the general and under the preferential tariff of 2i per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff:
Customs tariff-Fish hooks, for deep sea or lake fishing, not smaller in size than number 2.0; bank, cod, pollock and mackerel fish lines; and mackerel, herring, salmon, seal, seine, mullet, net and trawl twine in hanks or coil, barked or not,-in variety of sizes and threads, -including gilling thread in balls, and head roipes for fishing nets; barked marine, and net

norsels of cotton, hemp, or flax; and fishing nets or seines, and manila rope, not exceeding one and one-half inches in circumference, when used exclusively for the fisheries, not to include hooks, lines, nets or rope commorly used for sportsmen's purposes: British Preferential tariff, free; Intermediate tariff, free; General tariff, free.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Most of the articles in this item are already free, are they not?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, nearly all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Except manila rope, which before was limited to use in connection with lobster fishing.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes; the item is not changed.


Mr. GARDINER:: The various articles under this item are free, while other things in the tariff that are just as essential to the production of wealth from natural resources are dutiable. Why the distinction?


William Stevens Fielding: There always have
been such distinctions in the tariff. It is a matter of proceeding on the principle of "tempering the wind to the shorn lamb."


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-Settlers' effects, viz : -machines, vehicles and implements for agricultural purposes, moved by mechanical power, and motor vehicles, valued at not more than one thousand dollars, and boats for fishing purposes if actually owned abroad by the settler for at least six months before his removal to Canada, and subject to regulations prescribed by the Minister of Customs and Excise. Provided that the said machines, vehicles, implements and boats may not be so entered unless brought by the settler on his first arrival, and shall not be sold or otherwise disposed of without payment of duty until after twelve months' actual use in Canada: British Preferential tariff, free; Intermediate tariff, free; General tariff, free.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I have carefully gone over these items with a view to seeing whether there was included in them as placed on the free list an item mentioned in the Liberal tariff platform, which I have studied very closely in recent years, owing to the fact that it was so frequently compared with our own. Under that platform fertilizers were to be placed on the free list; they are not mentioned at all in these tariff reductions. Speaking on the budget, I pointed out that during the last six years we had collected only a little over $50,000 from the duty on fertilizers, while the manufacturers in this country had charged to the consumer some $3,800,000 extra on account of the duty. There would, therefore, be very little loss of revenue if we

Customs Tariff
put fertilizer on the free list. At any rate,
I urge on the minister that he cut the present duty in two, because very little mixed fertilizer comes into Canada to-day. With the exception of acid phosphate the materials entering into the manufacture of fertilizers are free. I would like to see acid phosphate put on the free list, and the duty on mixed fertilizers reduced from 10 to 5 per cent. There would be little loss of revenue on this account either; we collected less than $90,000 a year during the last six years, but we have paid to the manufacturers or mixers over half a million dollars per year on the material they brought in free. They are able to charge us this year $9 more than is paid by the farmers in Maine for the same product. Last year the difference was $15.


George Newcombe Gordon: I would point out
that the hon. member is not discussing the item which is before the committeee. He may put a question to the minister, but he may not enter into a discussion of the matter.


William Stevens Fielding: If we put fertilizer on the free list, that commodity would come entirely from the United States. We do not think it wise, for the present, to make numerous reductions in the tariff as against the United States. That is my answer to my hon. friend. We have already exempted fertilizers from the sales tax. There are many items on which the duties are rather higher as against the United States than I personally would like to have them, but I do not think this is the right time to reduce them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolved, That schedule B to The Customs Tariff, 1907, as amended by chapter forty-seven of the statutes of 1919, be amendtd by striking thereout tariff item 1026, the enumeration of goods and the rate of drawback of customs duties set opposite to the said Hem, and to provide that the following items, enumerations and rates of drawback of customs duties be inserted in said schedule B:
George Newcombe Gordon: I take it that the committee desires to consider this resolution item by item.
Customs tariff-Resolution No. 3-materials, including all parts not finished, subject to drawback when used in the manufacture of goods enumerated in tariff items 446, 446b, 447b, 448 and 448a-portion of duty (not including special duty or dumping duty) payable as drawback, 40 per cent.


William Stevens Fielding: In this case there was a drawback before of 30 per cent. In view
of the reduction on agricultural implements, we have increased the drawback to 40 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hatters' plush of silk or cotton and hatters' bindings, subject to drawback when imported by hat and cap manufacturers and used in the manufacture of hats and caps in their own factories-portion of duty (not including special duty or dumping duty) payable as drawback, 99 per cent.
Robert Henry Halbert: Under another item
which has been passed, supplies for hatters are free of duty. I understand from this item that the hat manufacturers pay duty on some of the articles that go into the hats; they get a drawback of 99 per cent, and we pay a tax to the extent of 35 per cent on hats. I do not think there is anything fair about that.


William Stevens Fielding: They do not get it on all material; it is on certain specified articles. They were free before, but we find that there is danger of abuse when the article is free for a specific purpose; it is better that they should pay duty and get a drawback, when they have proved their claim, of 99 per cent.


Robert Henry Halbert: Does the one per cent represent the cost of collecting the duty and paying the drawback?


William Stevens Fielding: That is the general rule applied in suchcases.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
William Stevens Fielding: I do not want to deal to-night with the general items of Inland Revenue, but at the bottom of page 9 there is an item by which it was intended to repeal the provisions which authorize what is called home brewing. Abuses have arisen in that respect, and the customs officials were at first strongly of opinion that the provision should be repealed. However, it is a case in which, perhaps, the remedy would be more troublesome than the disease, and for the present we intend to drop that item and let the matter stand as it is. I move, therefore, to strike out resolution 10 under the head of Inland Revenue, page 9.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am sorry that the minister has moved to strike this item out. I know for a fact that the home brewing business is the ruination of the country- our section of it at least. I notice that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) deprecates that statement. Well, a short time ago a man in one of the Do-
Customs Tariff

minion fish hatcheries was arrested and fined for operating an illicit still.


Ernest Lapointe: That was for beer, not for brew.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not know what he was brewing; it was something he should not have been brewing, anyway. In eastern Canada this home brewing is getting to be a great menace to the public.


Mr. BELAND:: A still is not used in brewing.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not know how they make it; I never tried to make it and never drank it.


Ernest Lapointe: That is the trouble
with my hon. friend.
Motion agreed to and resolution No. 10 (Inland Revenue) struck out.
Resolutions reported.


SALE AND INSPECTION OF ROOT VEGETABLES
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill No. 133, to regulate the sale and inspection of root vegetables, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On section 3-potato grades:
Mr. HUGHES:: Has the diameter been increased?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: This is an entirely new bill. There was a bill up last year that got through certain stages but remained on the Order Paper 'without being passed. This is the same as the old bill.


Mr. SPENCE:: I should like to say a word or two in regard to the striking out of certain words at the bottom of subsection 1 (a). We discussed this matter in the Committee on Agriculture the other day and I urged then that it was not in the interests of the trade to be forced to accept potatoes of the dimensions of one and seven-eighths inches and call them grade A-l. There is no use passing an act for the grading of potatoes unless those grades are practicable. I spoke to the minister about it this morning and he assured me that this bill might not come up until next Tuesday. I have wired to a firm in New Brunswick to confirm what I stated the other day in committee, that every province was satisfied with the grades provided. I am sorry to say that the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton was the strongest objector in the committee the other day to this bill, and the men who handle the goods had no 
say whatever. I would ask the minister to be good enough to leave this bill in committee until next week.


William Richard Motherwell: Very well.
Progress reported.


LOAN COMPANIES' ACT, 1914, AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill No. 59, to amend the Loan Companies' Act, 1914, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On section 1-application to companies incorporated by act of Parliament:
William Stevens Fielding: There are three bills on the Order Paper in my name, one relating to loan companies, now before us, one relating to the Insurance Act, and one relating to trust companies. Owing to great pressure of work in connection with the budget, I was not able to attend the meetings of the committee on Banking and Commerce which had these bills in charge. My hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean), the chairman of that committee is more familiar with the details and has kindly offered his assistance to see that the bills go through.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: Before we proceed to consider the bill section by section I may say that this bill has been amended very considerably, but only after consultation with all persons in the country who are interested in this legislation. The bill as reprinted represents the conclusions of the loan company representatives, the officials of the department, and the best judgment of the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On the motion for the adoption of the title:
John Millar: I would like to ask the minister, before we pass this bill, what the legal rate of interest is that loan companies are permitted to charge, or the maximum beyond which they cannot go?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Whatever rate of interest they can obtain from borrowers subject, of course, to the laws against usury.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


TRUST COMPANIES ACT, 1914, AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Mr. Fielding Bill No. 60 to amend the Trust Companies Act, 1914, was considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

Insurance Act Amendment

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Mr. Fielding the House went into committee on Bill No. 58, to Amend the Insurance Act, 1917, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On Section 1-Definition:
Charles Marcil: Is there any very radical change in this section?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is no radical change. The section contains new definitions as to agent, chief agency, etc., and then there is a provision for automobile insurance which was not in the old act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Valuation of securities in statements deposited by companies.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I beg to
move that the following words in line 37, section 7, 34a. be struck out, namely:
-by reason of serious disorganization of security markets.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
object of the change?


George Newcombe Gordon: It was struck out in the committee.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In other
words it is merely carrying into effect the committee's recommendations?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.
Section as amended agreed to.
On the motion to report the bill-


Oliver Robert Gould: Not necessarily in connection with Bill No. 58, but in connection with chapter 57 of the statutes of 1919 relating to fraternal benefit insurance, I would like to place a concrete case before the committee for its consideration. On April 10th I placed on the Order Paper a resolution dealing with fraternal benefit insurance companies.


George Newcombe Gordon: Is the hon. member
dealing with Bill No. 58?


Oliver Robert Gould: No, not necessarily with
Bill No. 58.


George Newcombe Gordon: Bill No. 58 is before
the committee.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: There is a fraternal
clause in this bill.


Oliver Robert Gould: Yes, clause 16. I desired to bring before the House the conditions which obtain in the western country, particularly as they affect fraternal societies, and, in a measure, reciprocal insurance. I placed this resolution on the Order Paper on April 10th, but, owing to the fact that I was unable to secure all the necessary information at that time to bring the matter before the House-and I only had one opportunity-it ilapsedl. However, I approached the chairman of the committee on Banking and Commerce, and asked for permission to present my case before the committee. He courteously allowed me to appear before the committee, and bring my witnesses, and upon three occasions this clause was under discussion in the committee. I have an amendment to the Insurance Act that I propose to offer to the committee, but before doing so, I wish to lay the case before the House. As I stated, it is more particularly a western question, and it has to do with one of the largest foreign fraternal benefit insurance societies on this continent, in fact, I believe it is the largest, having a membership of 1,500,000. In chapter 57 of the statutes passed in 1919, provisions were enacted which practically forbid the membership who belong to the parent organization doing any business in Canada. It caused the people in western Canada to close their books and write no more business. The real question hinged on the solvency of the institution. I want to give a little of the record of that organization, and, perhaps present to the House the true state of affairs, from their point of view. For the past two years, I have received very many requests, not alone from the central organization, but from many of the members who belong to that organization, who felt that they had been deprived of the fraternal benefit that accrued to them, and had a right to accrue to them, by years of membership in the organization. Further, this organization has an existence in the West, and has been doing business there for about 18 years, and, at the present time, it has a membership of approximately 7,000. The particular organization I refer to alone has 7,000 members, but there are other organizations which, alike, are affected by this legislation of 1919. As I stated before, it is a question of actuarial solvency. I want to explain the attitude of this association in this regard, and I would go back bo the year 1912, when the parent organization, or, at least, the head camp, as it is called, decided that they would require an increase in rates in this
Insurance Act Amendment

parent organization, and they, immediately, upon recognition of the fact that it was necessary to increase their rates, did increase them, without having given as careful consideration to the effect that this would have upon the memlbership as they should have. The result was they lost
350,000	members at that time, because of the sudden increase in rates. There was litigation, and, in fact, I believe, a very strong branch broke off in the United States. However, the vast majority of the members stood loyal and have built their institution up again. One of the new provisions is that every three years they shall have a readjustment of rates. The experience acquired by both parties to the readjustment of rates in 1912 has been a great factor in connection with their triennial arrangement, in educating the members to see the necessity of this readjustment under the changed conditions. Therefore, during the triennial readjustments which have taken place since that 1912 period, they have retained all their membership, and, in fact, they have a well-satisfied membership. As I stated before, they now number 1,500,000 souls. Moreover, the head camp is the supreme legislative body of the organization and, consequently, seeing that they have these triennial meetings, they find it very difficult to conform to any given or stated thing as is laid down in section 57 of the Insurance Act. For instance, the act states that in 1925 they must be actuarially solvent. Owing to the war and the Spanish influenza which came over this country, this company's assets got very low. In fact, even with their large membership, their assets went down until they had only slightly over $1,000,000 in assets in excess of their liabilities. The members however, are proud to be able to say that on no occasion has there been a default in the payment of any just claim. They are very desirous to carry on their business in western Canada and that they should be allowed to retain the interest which, they believe, still exists in their camps and membership.
As I stated, 1925 is the time fixed by chapter 57, of the statutes of 1919, when they must stand actuarially solvent. They point out that it is impossible to have readjustment periods enough in rates to show that they are actuarially solvent at that time. Consequently, three years ago they stopped writing business in western Canada, and it is because of non-writing of this business that these members have 
shown the dissatisfaction with the act of 1919 that exists over the West at the present time. The association has always recognized that a campaign of education is absolutely necessary to persuade such a large body of public opinion that, owing to change of economic and financial conditions, a readjustment of rates must be made. Since this hard and fast rule has been laid down that 1925 is the date when a large institution such as this must stand actuarially solvent, they recognizing the hopelessness of reaching that standard at that particular time, have not continued to write business any further. As I mentioned before, in 1912 this particular organization of which I speak lost a large membership; and when I say that ever since then they have succeeded in retaining their membership, it is only fair to compare this with other organizations which do not take the same educative attitude as this one does. The whole result has been that other organizations have lost their membership on account of rapid or quick readjustments, while this organization has been able to retain a contented membership, and that is one of the strong reasons why this provision should not be enforced upon them. While they had little more than $1,000,000 of assets over liabilities at the close of the period of the Spanish influenza following the war, they did not fail to pay any just or legitimate claim, and they are at present raising the basis of solvency. At one time it was estimated that the solvency basis was down to about 10 per cent, and in conversation with their actuary, I was advised and shown figures by him to prove that they were now standing upon a 56 per cent basis of actuarial solvency. That is making wonderful progress; they havt another readjustment period coming, and they state most positively that, if given time, they will become fully actuarially solvent. I know that the Superintendent of Insurance in his computations differs a little from the actuary of this company who, I may say, is also actuary for other organizations. This gentleman, who is a very able and capable private actuary, and recognized as such, is not recognized in Canada as an actuary. In fact there are in the United States a number of actuaries with nation-wide reputations, who are not recognized as actuaries under our law in Canada. Consequently, as this gentleman explained to me. he could submit figures and send them to Ottawa, but his figures would not be accepted by our Insurance Department. Yet, if some individual re-

Insurance Act Amendment
sident in Canada, who might have the name of an actuary or who might join this particular firm of actuaries, even though he was not very competent, should submit figures or should endorse this gentleman's figures, they would he accepted. This gentleman felt, that, as a responsible actuary, his figures should he accepted when they are accepted by such large organizations and bodies of men as those for whom he works.
A New York conference bill was passed some years ago in which 45 states of the Union agreed, and they permit the formation of foreign fraternal benefit societies with the same privileges as those accorded to their own societies. As regards the question of solvency, one of the provisions laid down in the New York conference'bill is that those companies in the United States must not retrograde in any respect; that they must make progress to maintain solvency. The provision is different in Canada. While people are not to be blamed in that they demand that a certain standard as regards solvency be maintained, this is an organization with 1,500,000 satisfied members who are well able to take care of an apparent deficit, especially when they know that in a short period of time, according to figures that have been submitted to them by their actuary, they will stand on a sound actuarial basis. In fact, they pointed out that the fraternal idea is really an asset in insurance, and this is being lost sight of in the demands made in chapter 57 of the statutes of 1919. I am sure the chairman of the committee will explain the whys and wherefores and the reasons why this was not altogether accepted in committee, and yet I must state that it was not rejected in committee. The matter was discussed two or three times, and with the kind permission of the committee I was asked to present a resolution to the House to-night on the presentation of this bill. The intention of the Superintendent of Insurance eventually to centralize the business of insurance in this country is possibly right. As a matter of fact, if I might digress a little, I might state that there are many departments of government, federal or provincial, which overlap. Perhaps the Department of Insurance is one where there is overlapping; but nevertheless, I might state that I have sent wires to western Canada because of sentiments that have been expressed to me that certain individuals in the West were opposed to having the provinces made supreme in the matter of this insurance. I have not
received answers to all the telegrams that I have sent out; but I have received replies from responsible members of provincial government and responsible people in western Canada, and all the telegrams that I have so far received state that they are perfectly satisfied with the amendment that I am presenting to the House at this time. They are quite satisfied to allow this association to carry on business in western Canada. In view of the expressions of opinion coming from the various insurance companies in western Canada, or at least those that I have heard from, I think it is only right that the Dominion government should grant a license to this organization. It is with that end in view that I move my amendment. Section 105, of Chapter 57 as it stands reads:
105. This Part applies only to fraternal benefit societies, but does not apply to any society incorporated under the laws of any province of Canada and not licensed under this Part.
I would have it amended to read:
This Fart applies only to fraternal benefit societies, but does not apply to any such society incorporated, or any such foreign society licensed under the laws of any province of Canada and not licensed under this Part.
It was some considerable time before I could find a solution that would be satisfactory to myself and to the organization, simply because it appeared to me that nearly every section of chapter 57 contained some provision which it was difficult for the insurance companies to comply with. The committee understand that I am pleading for a large section of the people who live in my district as well as for people who are scattered throughout the three western provinces. I am safe in saying, I believe, that in my electoral district there is the largest percentage of units or camps to be found in any part of the West. These people have repeatedly asked me to take up this question, and it is only fair to them that the matter Should be adjusted. I do not see any reason why the amendment I have offered should be opposed.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The matter which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Gould) has been discussing is not without difficulties. It has been frequently before the House for consideration. I believe that in 1919 similar proposals were considered by the committee on Banking and Commerce in connection with a bill then before it to amend the Insurance Act. At that time the bill after consideration by the committee was submitted to the House and the
Insurance Act Amendment

amendment was again proposed but failed to secure support. In 1919 our insurance legislation required that thereafter all fraternal societies in Canada were required to be solvent; that is, that they must put themselves in a position to meet all liabilities to their policy holders. All Canadian fraternal societies incorporated by federal legislation are to-day believed to be solvent; and it is the desire and indeed the policy of the Department of Insurance to make sure that all federally incorporated fraternal societies are solvent. There are foreign fraternal societies in Canada doing business, some of which are solvent and have submitted themselves to the law. They are imposing insurance premiums upon their new members sufficiently high to secure the policyholders against any loss, and furthermore they are willing to make, and as a matter of fact do make deposits with the Insurance Department here, as additional security for Canadian policyholders and as required by the Insurance Act amendments of 1919. In 1919, the Insurance Act was amended, and it was provided that foreign fraternal societies even though insolvent might continue to do business until 1925 provided that in the meantime they imposed a new rate upon new members sufficiently high to make the company strong and to protect the new policyholders; and in addition they were required to make a deposit with the insurance department as additional security for the Canadian membership. Some foreign companies have complied with that act, and there is no question about the fact that the whole purpose of the legislation passed in 1919 is to make fraternal societies solvent and able to meet liabilities that may mature from time to time. That policy is sound. It was the judgment of the parliamentary committee that considered the matter in 1919. That view was sustained by Parliament and was endorsed by the Canadian Fraternal Association. It has brought great improvement in the strength of many of the foreign fraternal societies doing business in Canada. Canadian societies federally incorporated to-day are solvent and do not wish any fraternal body that is not solvent, to be permitted to do business in Canada except under the conditions I have stated. Besides, they say it is unfair to allow foreign fraternal societies to carry on business in Canada if they are not to be subject to the same regulations respecting solvency as are Canadian companies. I am not going to discuss the question of actuarial solvency.

I am not sufficiently acquainted with the subject to do that intelligently,
10 p.m. and even if I could, I am not sure that many hon. members of the House would understand me. I do not know whether my hon. friend (Mr. Gould) understands really what actuarial solvency is, but if he does 1 congratulate him, because it is a most abstruse and difficult thing' to understand.


Oliver Robert Gould: Chapter 57 does not understand it either.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The society to which my hon. friend refers, is in this position financially. At the end of 1920 the amount of assets required to be maintained in order that the society might be actuarially solvent was $302,000,000, but the amount of assets that were actually maintained less provision for current liabilities was $17,000,000, in round figures. In other words, they were short of assets to the extent of $285,000,000. My hon. friend says that they should be given a period of years in which to become solvent, but he cannot tell how many years that will require. As a matter of fact, I do not suppose that the officers of that fraternal society themselves would know. It is true that they are doing business in several of the states of America, but at any rate their position as to actuarial solvency, is as I have stated. The idea of the legislation is to put foreign fraternal societies in the same position as Canadian fraternal societies. The law merely requires them to become solvent. There was an opportunity afforded this society of carrying on business under license until 1925, provided they made a certain deposit with the Insurance Department here, and also increased their insurance rates applicable to new membership. They failed to do that.
As I stated before, the matter has been carefully considered in the past, particularly in the year 1919 when it was thoroughly considered by Parliament. I do not think a single member of the Banking and Commerce Committee supported my hon. friend's amendment which we are now considering. The member for Lanark (Mr. Stewart) who is absent to-night, and who is associated with a very large provincial fraternal society operating in the province of Ontario, thought that the existing law was rather severe in respect of foreign societies. He admitted the difficulties of the situation, but did not undertake the responsibility of supporting the amendment of my

Insurance Act Amendment
hon. friend. In the circumstances I think it is the duty of the committee to reject the amendment.


George Perry Graham: I would like to say to hon. gentlemen who are endeavouring to make fraternal insurance easy that ten years from now they will regret having taken that attitude. There is a solid actuarial basis on which lives can be insured, and if we depart from that we get into trouble. Every fraternal society in Canada has had that experience. I speak knowingly, because for many years I was head of one of the largest fraternal societies in Ontario. Year after year some of us would introduce a recommendation that the rates be raised at least to approximate a safe basis, but that motion would be voted down on the ground that undue cost to the insured persons would be entailed. Ultimately, however, the rates have had to be raised, and many old members of these organizations have dropped out altogether, losing all that they invested in the way of life insurance. They are too old to go into any other organization now, and their families are therefore left without insurance. Those who have remained have had their insurance cut down immensely or are paying four or five times the rates they paid before their organization became financially sound. In my own case I was insured for $2,000; my policy was cut in two and the rate trebled. I stayed in, however, on account of the sentiment I have for the organization, in connection with which I have formed a great many friendly associations. The only result of giving protection in the form of life insurance without charging for it and without proceeding on an actuarial basis is failure to prosper, and although those who support that system may obtain cheap insurance for a few years, in the end they will regret it. The only real way to protect an organization of this kind is to insist that it be placed on a sound financial basis so that widows and orphans may reasonably expect to obtain the benefit of money invested. Otherwise these widows and orphans will be left without any return when their breadwinner is gone.


Oliver Robert Gould: I quite understand the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Graham) spoken in a spirit of prophecy-


George Perry Graham: Experience.


Oliver Robert Gould: Well, experience. The members of the organization of which I speak recognize that principle; since 1912
they have willingly paid the increased rates assessed upon them in each triennial period as considered necessary in order that operations might be carried on on an actuarial basis. But this organization suffered very much as the result of the Spanish influenza and of the war. It is not a fact that they have failed to pay all legal claims up to the present time. They recognize that they must come to a basis of actuarial solvency, but so far as western Canada is concerned it is almost impossible for them to do that in the length of time stipulated, owing to the huge deficits they have sustained. The membership has been willing to meet the assessments made necessary by the actuarial regulations, but the fact remains that they cannot reach a condition of 100 per cent efficiency in the time stated, and the result will be, if we pass this present legislation, that 7,000 men will be deprived of insurance which we all believe they should retain. It is unfortunate that older members should be obliged to leave these organizations, but the presence in them of the younger members who remain will serve to place the association on a better footing, and that is an important consideration in the levying of rates. I appeal to the committee to give favourable consideration to the case of these people out in the west as I have presented it.
Amendment (Mr. Gould) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 18-profits from participating policies:
Oliver Robert Gould: I have another amendment to submit, the reasons for which are much the same as those which I have given. This company cannot by 1925 reach actuarial solvency.


George Newcombe Gordon: Is the amendment in writing?


Oliver Robert Gould: No, it is just the changing of two words.


George Newcombe Gordon: What section of the present bill?


Oliver Robert Gould: Section 113 of chapter 57, clause 6.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am sorry, but my hon. friend cannot amend a section of the Insurance Act which is not dealt with in this bill.


George Newcombe Gordon: I must rule the proposed amendment out of order; it does not deal with this particular bill.
Insurance Act Amendment


Oliver Robert Gould: If I might offer a word of explanation, I have been in consultation with the Superintendent of Insurance and he has expressed the view that as an alternative my suggestion is well worth discussing. It is provided by clause 6 of section 113 of chapter 57 that in 1925 all fraternal benefit insurance societies shall stand upon a 100 per cent actuarial basis. These people find it impossible to retain their membership and do that. The amendment I wished to offer was that the period be extended until 1930.


George Newcombe Gordon: I draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that the matter with which he is dealing was supposed to have been covered by an amendment which he proposed and which has been dealt with by the committee. He is not in order in dealing with the same subject matter again.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I hardly
think the committee would be justified in extending that period now. It might be considered in 1925, though that is unlikely, because all Canadian fraternal societies federally incorporated are now solvent, and a great number of the foreign fraternal societies doing business in Canada are solvent or making themselves solvent actuarially. They have until 1925 to do it. The society to which my hon. friend refers can do business in Canada merely by providing for a higher premium rate for new membership and making a deposit. In the meantime the present members of the society are within the society, they pay the premium, and are covered by the risk. I think if my hon. friend has any other amendment to suggest, he had better appear before the Senate committee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Oliver Robert Gould: I did not finish my explanation. I am sure Mr. Chairman-


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. member
has already dealt with the subject in a previous amendment which has been voted down, and it is not competent for him to move a similar amendment on a subsequent section.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


PENNY BANK ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance) Bill No. 148, to amend the Penny Bank Act, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Marcil in the Chair.
[The Deputy Speaker.]
On section 1-proportion of certain deposits may be made in chartered bank, etc., designated by Minister of Finance.
William Stevens Fielding: When the resolution
was under consideration, my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance asked that the bill be held over for further inquiry, and he has called to my attention the fact that in drafting the bill it would be desirable to provide that when the bank exercises this privilege of depositing funds elsewhere they should be deposited in a chartered bank. I concur in his suggestion, and I move accordingly that the words "in a chartered bank" be inserted in both cases.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My whole
idea was to save my hon. friend trouble.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 146, to amend the Public Service Retirement Act, Chapter 67 of the Statutes of 1920, as amended by Chapter 49 of the Statutes of 1921, Mr. Marcil in the Chair.
On section 1-"Officer" extended to include employee paid by the hour.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
effect of that change?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The object of the amendment is to extend the operation of the act for one year. Since the resolution appeared on the Order Paper the Civil Service Commission has pointed out to me that under two subsections of the act an anomaly is created in the retirement of civil servants. The matter was referred to the Minister cf Justice and the deputy minister, and they have advised that it is necessary to insert the words "an hourly", to make this section correspond with the other sections.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is it confined to "hourly"? Salaries are paid on many different bases, hourly, daily, weekly and yearly.


Arthur Bliss Copp: This is just extending the
section to include the words "an hourly", to make all the sections correspond.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Meat and Canned Foods
On section 2-retirement extended to officers over as well as under 65 and made retroactive to July 1, 1920:
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the object of this section? What is the trouble which it is sought to cure?


Arthur Bliss Copp: 
Henry Lumley Drayton: As I understand, under this act the Government could not now retire men under sixty-five years of age?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The act is not changed a particle. The desire is merely to carry out the provisions of the law.


Henry Lumley Drayton: You are not now rearranging matters so that you can, compulsorily or otherwise, retire a man with a pension even though he were under sixty-five years of age?


Arthur Bliss Copp: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 150, to amend the Meat and Canned Foods Act, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the Chair.
On Section 1-"Establishment"; "Inspector" or "Inspecting officer"; "Dry lobster meat" or "dry meat."
Henry Lumley Drayton: I would like to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries whether this bill has been before any committee and thoroughly studied?


Ernest Lapointe: All the explanations were given yesterday when the resolution upon which the bill is founded was considered in committee. Each of these sections has been explained and discussed, and my hon. friend will find the discussion reported in Hansard of yesterday.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was just wondering whether the term "meat" was the proper one to use. The bill seems to deal entirely with fish?


Ernest Lapointe: This expression has always been used in all the acts governing this matter. The only change in this particular section is that the word "shellfish" is added to fish.


Mr. TOLMIE:: In connection with the enforcement of a similar act in regard to abattoirs, where meat is slaughtered for interprovincial trade or for export, the inspectors are carefully trained men who have to pass a special examination so as to ensure their being very thoroughly qualified for the work. What steps are proposed to be taken to ensure that these fishery inspectors shall be similarly qualified?


Ernest Lapointe: I may say to my hon. friend that the department of Marine and Fisheries has nothing to do with abattoirs. The Meat and Canned Foods Act applies to the department of Marine and Fisheries only in so far as fish and shellfish are concerned.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The minister did not quite understand my question. I stated that in the case of a similar act applying to abattoirs, where animals are slaughtered for export or interprovincial trade, fully qualified inspectors are employed. What I want to know is, what steps the minister proposes taking to ensure that the inspectors to be placed in charge of this important work will be fully qualified?


Ernest Lapointe: We have no special rule as to that. I am afraid, though, that
Meat and Canned Foods

the Civil Service Commission will have to appoint those men.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I presume they will have to pass a certain examination?


Ernest Lapointe: I suppose so, in geography and arithmetic.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Governor in Council may exempt export goods from labelling:
Henry Lumley Drayton: It seems to me that the minister in this case is showing a very great interest in the Marking Act, and is extending its provisions considerably.


Ernest Lapointe: No, not at all. This provision exists in the act.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I apologize
to the minister. He is merely endorsing the policy of the Marking Act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Regulations fixing varieties and grades of British Columbia salmon.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Is there any change at all in paragraph 12e? Is that covered by the statute and Order in Council?


Ernest Lapointe: It is giving the names of the various kinds of salmon-


Henry Lumley Drayton: But it was statutory before?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is the minister not feeling nervous about departing from the -very proper thing called the statute, and leaving the whole business to Order in Council?


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, no, it is a question of regulation. It may certainly come under the power of the Governor in Council, but we are not intending to legislate, as was done, formerly, by Order in Council. It is a mere question of administration and regulation. Surely my hon. friend sees that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Previously
the statute said that such and such salmon were in such a class. That all goes by the board, and, in future, these poor salmon will be designated as the Government sees fit to designate them, by Order in Council.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 6-Canned fish imported for export only:
Henry Lumley Drayton: Does the minister think it is right for him to impose a greater degree of particularity on the home manufacturer than he does on the foreign exporter, his competitor in the Canadian market?


Ernest Lapointe: The provision now proposed is exactly as it was before, with the exception that three lines have been added., which read:
-and no false or misleading mark or designation of the kind or variety of the contents shall he shown on any can of fish or shellfish imported for sale in Canada.
I am adopting the section as enacted by the former government, adding this clause which is intended to stop the practice of Alaska packers sending Alaska red eye into Canada labelled as sockeye, which enables them to compete with British Columbia sockeye, a much superior fish. This provision protects the home industry.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is still room for hope, in the case of my hon. friend.


Ernest Lapointe: For all sinners.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is the chief one. Does he not think that as much care should be taken in connection with the marketing of these goods, having regard to the foreigner, as is taken in connection with the home manufacturer.


Ernest Lapointe: This was the law before. We are making it more severe against the foreign canner than it was formerly, and, moreover, the Canadian canners accept this change. All the provisions of this bill have been submitted to them, both in British Columbia and the maritime provinces, and they have suggested changes which we have adopted. This bill meets their views. Surely, it should meet the views of my hon. friend.


Robert James Manion: Has the minister the permission of the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) to put this bill through?


Ernest Lapointe: No, but I think he approved of the bill yesterday.


Mr. DUFF:: In no uncertain language.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King, the House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.

Business of the House
Monday, June 19, 1922